Brett Michael Kavanaugh and the Roman Catholic Church

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

1. They know the FBI won't investigate it so they have nothing to lose by demanding it.

The FBI would "investigate it" were the president to order them to do so (cf. Bush 41's order of an FBI inquiry into Anita Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas in 1991). Presented with a presidential order, the FBI would have no choice. So if the conclusion of your assertion here is to bear any resemblance to the truth, its premise must be changed: "They know President Trump won't ask the FBI to investigate it, so they have nothing to lose."

Fair enough. And since there is nothing to actually investigate, and her story isn't even consistent, it would be a colossal waste of time (and money) as well as resources that should be investigationg ACTUAL crimes and just a perpetuation of the Democrat stall tactic.

And if President Trump won't ask the FBI to investigate, why doesn't Judge Kavanaugh ask for such a probe so as to clear his name?... Because if he did, the president would face enormous public and political pressure to order one, pressure to which the president would likely surrender. And an actual FBI investigation of Blasey Ford's accusations is an outcome NO ONE in Camp Kavanaugh - on the Hill, in the White House, or in the Kavanaugh household - wants.

He doesn't need to clear his name. Her credibility is shot.

2. I don't know about the second one.

But what about the larger point the reporter makes? If both the judge and the professor appear and tell diametrically opposite stories of what happened - i.e. SHE: "I swear under oath and beyond doubt that Brett Kavanaugh attacked me;" HE: "I swear under oath and beyond doubt that I did not attack her" - then at least one of them will not be telling the truth. In that case, would you support a formal investigation into possible perjury charges against whoever was found to be lying?

You forget, she is also balking at the hearing.

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

Fair enough. And since there is nothing to actually investigate, and her story isn't even consistent, it would be a colossal waste of time (and money) as well as resources that should be investigationg ACTUAL crimes and just a perpetuation of the Democrat stall tactic.

If there's "nothing to actually investigate," then why not call for an FBI investigation that would no doubt prove there is "nothing to actually investigate"? What better way to hold Blasey Ford and her Democratic supporters accountable for their actions than to prove via the very mechanism she's calling for that there's nothing to her claims?

As for her story's not being consistent. In a post I created yesterday, I said this...

As far as I can tell, the only significant discrepancy between the telling of events Blasey Ford gave to the Washington Post and the notes of her therapist is the number of people in the room with her at the time of the alleged assault: to the Post, she claimed two involved, while the therapist's notes report four.

You're claiming that it's "HIGHLY SUSPECT" if a person remembers, in reports offered six years apart - the first one, in the inherently stressful setting of couples therapy; the second one in the inherently stressful setting of disclosing an incident of alleged sexual assault to a national newspaper - first four, then two persons involved in an obviously traumatic incident that happened 30+ years ago? How "SUSPECT" would you have considered it had the therapist's notes reported three, rather four, others involved?

Do you claim her story "isn't even consistent" in way(s) OTHER than the number of people in the room? If so, please specify. If not, please address the question I posed in yesterday's post.

He doesn't need to clear his name. Her credibility is shot.

If her credibility is "shot," what better way to prove it than via the very mechanism she's calling for, an FBI investigation?

More broadly, it sure sounds as if you, like virtually every other Trump/Kavanaugh supporter in this matter, don't want ANY part of an FBI investigation. If I believed Kavanaugh's denial and believed as you do that there is "nothing to actually investigate," I would be shouting for the president to order such an inquiry. Such a move would neutralize Democrats' claims of a coverup, would show the president's full-throated confidence in Kavanaugh, would in some ways hold Blasey Ford accountable for her what I believed was a false charge, and would give GOP candidates in the midterms a response to questions about the matter that many/most voters would find palatable, perhaps even acceptable: "I respect Dr Ford, but the FBI investigated her charges and didn't find a thing."

You forget, she is also balking at the hearing.

This does not respond to the question I asked, because under the scenario I presented, Blasey Ford would obviously NOT be "balking at the hearing." I asked if you would support a formal investigation of possible perjury charges were Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh both to appear before the Judiciary Committee, and under oath during their appearances make diametrically opposed assertions of fact - SHE: "Judge Kavanaugh attacked me." HE: "I did not." Hence, I ask my question again.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

Fair enough. And since there is nothing to actually investigate, and her story isn't even consistent, it would be a colossal waste of time (and money) as well as resources that should be investigationg ACTUAL crimes and just a perpetuation of the Democrat stall tactic.

If there's "nothing to actually investigate," then why not call for an FBI investigation that would no doubt prove there is "nothing to actually investigate"? What better way to hold Blasey Ford and her Democratic supporters accountable for their actions than to prove via the very mechanism she's calling for that there's nothing to her claims?

I have already explained why the FBI shouldn't investigate. Waste of time, money, and resources.

As for her story's not being consistent. In a post I created yesterday, I said this...

As far as I can tell, the only significant discrepancy between the telling of events Blasey Ford gave to the Washington Post and the notes of her therapist is the number of people in the room with her at the time of the alleged assault: to the Post, she claimed two involved, while the therapist's notes report four.

You're claiming that it's "HIGHLY SUSPECT" if a person remembers, in reports offered six years apart - the first one, in the inherently stressful setting of couples therapy; the second one in the inherently stressful setting of disclosing an incident of alleged sexual assault to a national newspaper - first four, then two persons involved in an obviously traumatic incident that happened 30+ years ago? How "SUSPECT" would you have considered it had the therapist's notes reported three, rather four, others involved?

Do you claim her story "isn't even consistent" in way(s) OTHER than the number of people in the room? If so, please specify. If not, please address the question I posed in yesterday's post.

Something that big you wouldn't forget how many people there were. And if in the off chance event you did you would not then say your therapist, who wrote it down, got it wrong. She's not credible.

He doesn't need to clear his name. Her credibility is shot.

If her credibility is "shot," what better way to prove it than via the very mechanism she's calling for, an FBI investigation?

See above.

More broadly, it sure sounds as if you, like virtually every other Trump/Kavanaugh supporter in this matter, don't want ANY part of an FBI investigation. If I believed Kavanaugh's denial and believed as you do that there is "nothing to actually investigate," I would be shouting for the president to order such an inquiry. Such a move would neutralize Democrats' claims of a coverup, would show the president's full-throated confidence in Kavanaugh, would in some ways hold Blasey Ford accountable for her what I believed was a false charge, and would give GOP candidates in the midterms a response to questions about the matter that many/most voters would find palatable, perhaps even acceptable: "I respect Dr Ford, but the FBI investigated her charges and didn't find a thing."

I don't think the FBI should spend their time investigating fake claims that cannot be proven or unproven almost 4 decades after the fact for something that has passed statute of limitations from someone who won't even go to a hearing and has no credibility.

You forget, she is also balking at the hearing.

This does not respond to the question I asked, because under the scenario I presented, Blasey Ford would obviously NOT be "balking at the hearing." I asked if you would support a formal investigation of possible perjury charges were Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh both to appear before the Judiciary Committee, and under oath during their appearances make diametrically opposed assertions of fact - SHE: "Judge Kavanaugh attacked me." HE: "I did not." Hence, I ask my question again.

The appropriate forum is what she is balking at. It is a delay tactic, nothing else.

C Mc

Oh, Bill,
You make two valid points. Only extreme partisans can't see it, here in CD or the White House" (a.k.a "Crazy House"). Thanks for the clarity of reasoning. CM

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

I have already explained why the FBI shouldn't investigate. Waste of time, money, and resources.

On what basis does/should the FBI know that it would be a "waste of time, money, and resources" to launch an investigation, especially since it's the White House, not the FBI, who would order any such inquiry? Did you object to the $7 million and two years the House Government Oversight Committee spent investigating Benghazi, to basically no claims of wrongdoing?

Something that big you wouldn't forget how many people there were. And if in the off chance event you did you would not then say your therapist, who wrote it down, got it wrong. She's not credible.

How do you know about the accuracy of the specific details sexual assault victims - specifically, Dr Ford - remember and don't remember?

And you did not respond to the question I posed in my last post: Do you claim her story "isn't even consistent" in way(s) OTHER than the number of people in the room? If so, please specify. If not, please address the other question I posed in yesterday's post: How "SUSPECT" would you have considered it had the therapist's notes reported three, rather four, others involved?

I don't think the FBI should spend their time investigating fake claims that cannot be proven or unproven almost 4 decades after the fact for something that has passed statute of limitations from someone who won't even go to a hearing and has no credibility.

"Fake claims." So you contend Dr Blasey Ford is lying? On what basis do you accuse her of lying?

"Passed the statute of limitations." Not true. As I demonstrated to you in a previous post, the state of Maryland, where this alleged assault occurred, has no statute of limitation on felony sexual assault crimes.

The appropriate forum is what she is balking at. It is a delay tactic, nothing else.

That her call for our nation's highest, most respected and independent gatherer of facts to investigate her claims - an investigation that would blow up in her face, if you're right about her "fake claims" - is in your view a "delay tactic, nothing else" is quite telling: Blasey Ford, the alleged victim, wants an independent review of the facts. Kavanaugh, the alleged abuser, apparently does not. I, a supporter of the alleged victim's, want an independent review of the facts. You, a supporter of the alleged abuser's, do not. If I were you, reformed, I'd want to be on the OTHER side of that symmetry.

And yet again you "balk" at the question I asked. For the third time, if Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford appear at the hearing - what you now call "the appropriate forum" - and in their respective under-oath testimonies make diametrically opposite assertions -- She says, "Judge Kavanaugh attacked me." He says, "I did not attack Christine Blasey Ford." -- would you support an investigation into and possible prosecution of perjury charges against the one of them deemed to have lied? It's a simple yes or no question.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

I have already explained why the FBI shouldn't investigate. Waste of time, money, and resources.

On what basis does/should the FBI know that it would be a "waste of time, money, and resources" to launch an investigation, especially since it's the White House, not the FBI, who would order any such inquiry? Did you object to the $7 million and two years the House Government Oversight Committee spent investigating Benghazi, to basically no claims of wrongdoing?

Something that big you wouldn't forget how many people there were. And if in the off chance event you did you would not then say your therapist, who wrote it down, got it wrong. She's not credible.

How do you know about the accuracy of the specific details sexual assault victims - specifically, Dr Ford - remember and don't remember?

And you did not respond to the question I posed in my last post: Do you claim her story "isn't even consistent" in way(s) OTHER than the number of people in the room? If so, please specify. If not, please address the other question I posed in yesterday's post: How "SUSPECT" would you have considered it had the therapist's notes reported three, rather four, others involved?

Bill she can't even name a time and place.

I don't think the FBI should spend their time investigating fake claims that cannot be proven or unproven almost 4 decades after the fact for something that has passed statute of limitations from someone who won't even go to a hearing and has no credibility.

"Fake claims." So you contend Dr Blasey Ford is lying? On what basis do you accuse her of lying?

Absolutely. Inconsistent, can't remember any specific details, no witnesses that corroborate story, no evidence. Timing.. Political motivation.. etc...

"Passed the statute of limitations." Not true. As I demonstrated to you in a previous post, the state of Maryland, where this alleged assault occurred, has no statute of limitation on felony sexual assault crimes.

Actually, the charge would amount to aggravated assault at best (and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said. And there is a statute of limitations on that.

The appropriate forum is what she is balking at. It is a delay tactic, nothing else.

That her call for our nation's highest, most respected and independent gatherer of facts to investigate her claims - an investigation that would blow up in her face, if you're right about her "fake claims" - is in your view a "delay tactic, nothing else" is quite telling: Blasey Ford, the alleged victim, wants an independent review of the facts. Kavanaugh, the alleged abuser, apparently does not. I, a supporter of the alleged victim's, want an independent review of the facts. You, a supporter of the alleged abuser's, do not. If I were you, reformed, I'd want to be on the OTHER side of that symmetry.

She should have come forward decades ago. The timing shows this is politically motivated. The fact that she won't testify is even more telling.

And yet again you "balk" at the question I asked. For the third time, if Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford appear at the hearing - what you now call "the appropriate forum" - and in their respective under-oath testimonies make diametrically opposite assertions -- She says, "Judge Kavanaugh attacked me." He says, "I did not attack Christine Blasey Ford." -- would you support an investigation into and possible prosecution of perjury charges against the one of them deemed to have lied? It's a simple yes or no question.

No. It is he said/she said.

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

Bill she can't even name a time and place.

On what grounds do you have the experience and expertise to decide what victims of sexual assault should be able to remember?

Absolutely. Inconsistent, can't remember any specific details, no witnesses that corroborate story, no evidence. Timing.. Political motivation.. etc...

No "specific details"? According to the Washington Post, Blasey Ford described the incident this way (via CBSNews.com; I can't get behind WAPO's paywall - emphasis added)

"In the interview, Ford said she believes the alleged incident occurred in 1982, when she was a 15-year-old sophomore at an all-girls school in suburban Maryland. Kavanaugh, who attended an all-boys school, would have been 17. She said she was at a party with other teenagers at a home close to a country club where she spent time during the summer. Ford said Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge had been drinking earlier and were very drunk. Ford had one beer at the house, she said.

"When she went upstairs to use the bathroom, Ford told the Post that she was pushed into a bedroom. She said Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. Judge stood across the room and both of the boys were laughing "maniacally," Ford said. When she tried to scream, she said Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth.

"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," she told the Post. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."

"Eventually, Ford said, Judge jumped on top of them, and she managed to get free and lock herself in a bathroom. After she heard the boys "going down the stairs, hitting the walls," she said she made it downstairs and out the door, but doesn't remember how she got home.

If you don't consider the highlighted statements from her account of the incident to be "specific details," what do you consider them?

Actually, the charge would amount to aggravated assault at best (and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said. And there is a statute of limitations on that.

Facts matter, reformed.

1. According to Maryland law, among the definitions of "sexual act" is one that "can reasonably be construed to be for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party." Kavanaugh's alleged act toward Blasey Ford meets that definition.
2. According to Maryland law, a person may not "engage in a sexual act with another by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;" NOR may a person "commit the crime while aided and abetted by another." Given Judge's alleged presence in the room, Kavanaugh is alleged to have done both.
3. According to Maryland law, violation of state code 3-305 (see #2) is a felony, which means, according to Maryland law, there is NO statute of limitation on Kavanaugh's alleged act.

She should have come forward decades ago. The timing shows this is politically motivated. The fact that she won't testify is even more telling.

Again you display a profound lack of understanding about the impact of sexual assault on its victims. I again encourage you to read more broadly in the field than you have to-date.

No. It is he said/she said.

But he were to LIE in what he said, or she were to LIE in what she said, why would you not support an investigation into possible perjury charges?

---

You didn't respond to my question as to whether the Benghazi hearings - two years and $7 million - were a waste of time, money, and effort, given their meager results (no allegations of significant wrongdoing, for example).

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

Bill she can't even name a time and place.

On what grounds do you have the experience and expertise to decide what victims of sexual assault should be able to remember?

Absolutely. Inconsistent, can't remember any specific details, no witnesses that corroborate story, no evidence. Timing.. Political motivation.. etc...

No "specific details"? According to the Washington Post, Blasey Ford described the incident this way (via CBSNews.com; I can't get behind WAPO's paywall - emphasis added)

"In the interview, Ford said she believes the alleged incident occurred in 1982, when she was a 15-year-old sophomore at an all-girls school in suburban Maryland. Kavanaugh, who attended an all-boys school, would have been 17. She said she was at a party with other teenagers at a home close to a country club where she spent time during the summer. Ford said Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge had been drinking earlier and were very drunk. Ford had one beer at the house, she said.

"When she went upstairs to use the bathroom, Ford told the Post that she was pushed into a bedroom. She said Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath. Judge stood across the room and both of the boys were laughing "maniacally," Ford said. When she tried to scream, she said Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth.

"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," she told the Post. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."

"Eventually, Ford said, Judge jumped on top of them, and she managed to get free and lock herself in a bathroom. After she heard the boys "going down the stairs, hitting the walls," she said she made it downstairs and out the door, but doesn't remember how she got home.

If you don't consider the highlighted statements from her account of the incident to be "specific details," what do you consider them?

You don't know a specific place, you don't know a time other than the year. It was long enough ago that no specific details can be remembered. Yet somehow she knows how many drinks some of the people had? No sir.

Actually, the charge would amount to aggravated assault at best (and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said. And there is a statute of limitations on that.

Facts matter, reformed.

1. According to Maryland law, among the definitions of "sexual act" is one that "can reasonably be construed to be for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party." Kavanaugh's alleged act toward Blasey Ford meets that definition.
2. According to Maryland law, a person may not "engage in a sexual act with another by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;" NOR may a person "commit the crime while aided and abetted by another." Given Judge's alleged presence in the room, Kavanaugh is alleged to have done both.
3. According to Maryland law, violation of state code 3-305 (see #2) is a felony, which means, according to Maryland law, there is NO statute of limitation on Kavanaugh's alleged act.

You need to re-read what I said. actually.

She should have come forward decades ago. The timing shows this is politically motivated. The fact that she won't testify is even more telling.

Again you display a profound lack of understanding about the impact of sexual assault on its victims. I again encourage you to read more broadly in the field than you have to-date.

If you are going to make that large of a claim, then not come forward about it, that is suspect. How you cannot see that is amazing to me.

No. It is he said/she said.

But he were to LIE in what he said, or she were to LIE in what she said, why would you not support an investigation into possible perjury charges?

And how would you prove it?

---

You didn't respond to my question as to whether the Benghazi hearings - two years and $7 million - were a waste of time, money, and effort, given their meager results (no allegations of significant wrongdoing, for example).

That's not even close to an equal comparison. You are talking about an event that happened right then and resulted in the deaths of several Americans, and the jury is still out on significant wrongdoing, and something that happend decades ago and was he said/she said.

C Mc

@Bill_Coley said:

You didn't respond to my question as to whether the Benghazi hearings - two years and $7 million - were a waste of time, money, and effort, given their meager results (no allegations of significant wrongdoing, for example).

Even if you Reformed did, it would blow his mind to be reminded of the monies spent on Clinton/White Water Land Deal. The outcome? Clinton re-elected, house impeachment and proven only he has sex outside of his marriage. CM

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:
You don't know a specific place, you don't know a time other than the year. It was long enough ago that no specific details can be remembered. Yet somehow she knows how many drinks some of the people had? No sir.

I ask you again, reformed: On what grounds do you have the experience and expertise to decide what victims of sexual assault should be able to remember?

You need to re-read what I said. actually.

What you said, actually, was... (emphasis added)

Actually, the charge would amount to aggravated assault at best (and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said. And there is a statute of limitations on that.

And then I demonstrated for you, actually, that according to Maryland law, Kavanaugh's alleged act would NOT be "aggravated assault at best" for which there would be a statute of limitation. It would instead be a felony sex offense, which according to Maryland law, does NOT have a statute of limitations.

If you are going to make that large of a claim, then not come forward about it, that is suspect. How you cannot see that is amazing to me.

What's more amazing than what I can or cannot see, is your profound lack of understanding of the effects of sexual assault on its victims. Please, please, please read more broadly on the subject than you have to-date.

But he were to LIE in what he said, or she were to LIE in what she said, why would you not support an investigation into possible perjury charges?

And how would you prove it?

I assume that a full investigation would be able to assess whether there is enough information to charge either Kavanaugh or Blasey Ford with perjury. But they certainly wouldn't be able to do that without an investigation. Then it would be up to a jury to decide whether a charged defendant lied. That's the basic expectation of our justice system.

You didn't respond to my question as to whether the Benghazi hearings - two years and $7 million - were a waste of time, money, and effort, given their meager results (no allegations of significant wrongdoing, for example).

That's not even close to an equal comparison. You are talking about an event that happened right then and resulted in the deaths of several Americans, and the jury is still out on significant wrongdoing, and something that happened decades ago and was he said/she said.

The jury is not out on Benghazi. Eight or nine congressional investigations ALL concluded there was no wrongdoing in the tragedy. How many more investigations will it take before you're concerned about wasting time and resources?

Victims of sexual assault will tell you it shouldn't matter whether their assaults happened "right then" or "decades ago." And your seeming suggestion that as long as perpetrators of assault act alone and leave no physical evidence - that is, they make sure it's a he said/she said event - you're not terribly troubled if their crimes aren't investigated (because, how would you prove it?) would receive some very strong objections.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:
You don't know a specific place, you don't know a time other than the year. It was long enough ago that no specific details can be remembered. Yet somehow she knows how many drinks some of the people had? No sir.

I ask you again, reformed: On what grounds do you have the experience and expertise to decide what victims of sexual assault should be able to remember?

You need to re-read what I said. actually.

What you said, actually, was... (emphasis added)

Actually, the charge would amount to aggravated assault at best (and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said. And there is a statute of limitations on that.

And then I demonstrated for you, actually, that according to Maryland law, Kavanaugh's alleged act would NOT be "aggravated assault at best" for which there would be a statute of limitation. It would instead be a felony sex offense, which according to Maryland law, does NOT have a statute of limitations.

Again, re-read what I wrote (hint, you need to change where you put the emphasis because you missed something pretty big).

If you are going to make that large of a claim, then not come forward about it, that is suspect. How you cannot see that is amazing to me.

What's more amazing than what I can or cannot see, is your profound lack of understanding of the effects of sexual assault on its victims. Please, please, please read more broadly on the subject than you have to-date.

But he were to LIE in what he said, or she were to LIE in what she said, why would you not support an investigation into possible perjury charges?

And how would you prove it?

I assume that a full investigation would be able to assess whether there is enough information to charge either Kavanaugh or Blasey Ford with perjury. But they certainly wouldn't be able to do that without an investigation. Then it would be up to a jury to decide whether a charged defendant lied. That's the basic expectation of our justice system.

All there is is he said/she said. There is no crime scene, there are no witnesses.

You didn't respond to my question as to whether the Benghazi hearings - two years and $7 million - were a waste of time, money, and effort, given their meager results (no allegations of significant wrongdoing, for example).

That's not even close to an equal comparison. You are talking about an event that happened right then and resulted in the deaths of several Americans, and the jury is still out on significant wrongdoing, and something that happened decades ago and was he said/she said.

The jury is not out on Benghazi. Eight or nine congressional investigations ALL concluded there was no wrongdoing in the tragedy. How many more investigations will it take before you're concerned about wasting time and resources?

No criminal wrong doing and no wrong doing are two different things.

Victims of sexual assault will tell you it shouldn't matter whether their assaults happened "right then" or "decades ago." And your seeming suggestion that as long as perpetrators of assault act alone and leave no physical evidence - that is, they make sure it's a he said/she said event - you're not terribly troubled if their crimes aren't investigated (because, how would you prove it?) would receive some very strong objections.

I believe in innocent until guilty, apparently you do not.

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

What you said, actually, was... (emphasis added)

Actually, the charge would amount to aggravated assault at best (and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said. And there is a statute of limitations on that.

And then I demonstrated for you, actually, that according to Maryland law, Kavanaugh's alleged act would NOT be "aggravated assault at best" for which there would be a statute of limitation. It would instead be a felony sex offense, which according to Maryland law, does NOT have a statute of limitations.

Again, re-read what I wrote (hint, you need to change where you put the emphasis because you missed something pretty big).

In the time it took you to write this and your previous post's cryptic clues as to my purported mistaken interpretation of your views (the previous one: "You need to re-read what I said. actually.") you could have specified the location and language applicable to my error, and simply told me what it was. Imagine were I to respond to you now by saying, "Well, I think you need to re-read my post. Your error is obvious"? Not very helpful, right? But there's a better way. To wit...

This exchange started when, in response to THIS POST OF MINE, in which I claimed there is no statute of limitation on felony sexual assault crimes in Maryland and that the crime at issue in Blasey Ford's story would qualify as a felony, you claimed IN THIS POST OF YOURS that the crime "Actually... would amount to aggravated assault at best," a crime on which you claimed there is a statute of limitations.

THE OTHER MATERIAL IN YOUR RESPONSE - "(and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said." - is not relevant to whether Blasey Ford's allegation would be charged in Maryland as a felony sex crime (my claim) or as an aggravated assault (your claim). EVERY CASE needs witnesses and evidence. EVERY CASE needs proof. My point was NOT whether a case against Kavanaugh could be won, or even that one would be brought by prosecutors. My point was that the actions Blasey Ford makes in her story are actions consistent with Maryland law's felony sex crime laws, laws for which there are NO statutes of limitation.

Whether a case would be brought would be up to prosecutors. Whether a case would be won would be up to a jury. NEITHER of those issues has ANYTHING to do with the question of whether the actions Blasey Ford describes more accurately fit Maryland's felony sexual assault laws or the state's aggravated assault laws. In my view, the Maryland law code I cited makes clear that the answer is its felony sexual assault laws. Please cite the Maryland law code which you believe supports your view that Blasey Ford's assertions more accurately describe an aggravated assault.

All there is is he said/she said. There is no crime scene, there are no witnesses.

Perhaps you couldn't prove it. But I would want prosecutors to evaluate the matter, not legal laypeople like as you and me.

I'm also very uncomfortable with giving a pass to perjury. If perjury is evident, I want it examined. Perhaps there is no case to be made. If not. Fine. But take a look.

He said/She said? No. He said/She said/He said, and the second "he" doesn't want to testify under oath. THAT'S not suspicious! And the first "he" denied being at the party Blasey Ford described without having a clue as to which party she was talking about. THAT'S not suspicious either!

And yet again you chose not to engage my encouragement that you read more broadly than you have to-date on the impact of sexual assault on its victims. So for the third time I encourage you to do so.

Victims of sexual assault will tell you it shouldn't matter whether their assaults happened "right then" or "decades ago." And your seeming suggestion that as long as perpetrators of assault act alone and leave no physical evidence - that is, they make sure it's a he said/she said event - you're not terribly troubled if their crimes aren't investigated (because, how would you prove it?) would receive some very strong objections.

I believe in innocent until guilty, apparently you do not.

I certainly believe in the presumption of innocence as the standard in criminal trials. The bar for the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees is in my view very different.

Presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway on CNN tonight asked, isn't it enough that Kavanaugh says he wasn't there? No. That's not enough. Not when the allegation is sexual assault. Period. Full stop. But also, not when what's at stake is a lifetime position on the court that might shape our country for decades to come.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

What you said, actually, was... (emphasis added)

Actually, the charge would amount to aggravated assault at best (and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said. And there is a statute of limitations on that.

And then I demonstrated for you, actually, that according to Maryland law, Kavanaugh's alleged act would NOT be "aggravated assault at best" for which there would be a statute of limitation. It would instead be a felony sex offense, which according to Maryland law, does NOT have a statute of limitations.

Again, re-read what I wrote (hint, you need to change where you put the emphasis because you missed something pretty big).

In the time it took you to write this and your previous post's cryptic clues as to my purported mistaken interpretation of your views (the previous one: "You need to re-read what I said. actually.") you could have specified the location and language applicable to my error, and simply told me what it was. Imagine were I to respond to you now by saying, "Well, I think you need to re-read my post. Your error is obvious"? Not very helpful, right? But there's a better way. To wit...

This exchange started when, in response to THIS POST OF MINE, in which I claimed there is no statute of limitation on felony sexual assault crimes in Maryland and that the crime at issue in Blasey Ford's story would qualify as a felony, you claimed IN THIS POST OF YOURS that the crime "Actually... would amount to aggravated assault at best," a crime on which you claimed there is a statute of limitations.

THE OTHER MATERIAL IN YOUR RESPONSE - "(and even then you would need a witness and/or evidence) as nothing else can be proven other than he said/she said." - is not relevant to whether Blasey Ford's allegation would be charged in Maryland as a felony sex crime (my claim) or as an aggravated assault (your claim). EVERY CASE needs witnesses and evidence. EVERY CASE needs proof. My point was NOT whether a case against Kavanaugh could be won, or even that one would be brought by prosecutors. My point was that the actions Blasey Ford makes in her story are actions consistent with Maryland law's felony sex crime laws, laws for which there are NO statutes of limitation.

Whether a case would be brought would be up to prosecutors. Whether a case would be won would be up to a jury. NEITHER of those issues has ANYTHING to do with the question of whether the actions Blasey Ford describes more accurately fit Maryland's felony sexual assault laws or the state's aggravated assault laws. In my view, the Maryland law code I cited makes clear that the answer is its felony sexual assault laws. Please cite the Maryland law code which you believe supports your view that Blasey Ford's assertions more accurately describe an aggravated assault.

All there is is he said/she said. There is no crime scene, there are no witnesses.

Perhaps you couldn't prove it. But I would want prosecutors to evaluate the matter, not legal laypeople like as you and me.

I'm also very uncomfortable with giving a pass to perjury. If perjury is evident, I want it examined. Perhaps there is no case to be made. If not. Fine. But take a look.

He said/She said? No. He said/She said/He said, and the second "he" doesn't want to testify under oath. THAT'S not suspicious! And the first "he" denied being at the party Blasey Ford described without having a clue as to which party she was talking about. THAT'S not suspicious either!

And yet again you chose not to engage my encouragement that you read more broadly than you have to-date on the impact of sexual assault on its victims. So for the third time I encourage you to do so.

Victims of sexual assault will tell you it shouldn't matter whether their assaults happened "right then" or "decades ago." And your seeming suggestion that as long as perpetrators of assault act alone and leave no physical evidence - that is, they make sure it's a he said/she said event - you're not terribly troubled if their crimes aren't investigated (because, how would you prove it?) would receive some very strong objections.

I believe in innocent until guilty, apparently you do not.

I certainly believe in the presumption of innocence as the standard in criminal trials. The bar for the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees is in my view very different.

Presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway on CNN tonight asked, isn't it enough that Kavanaugh says he wasn't there? No. That's not enough. Not when the allegation is sexual assault. Period. Full stop. But also, not when what's at stake is a lifetime position on the court that might shape our country for decades to come.

It is enough if there is no evidence and no other witnesses.

reformed

She won't even agree to a private session in California or even a phone call. Time to move on, this is ridiculous.

[Deleted User]

@Bill_Cole y said:
You contend that it's a "little late" for the gathering of as many facts as possible about an alleged sexual assault? Do you seriously believe it can EVER be a "little late" to learn about incidents of sexual assault, if in fact they happened, even if the statute of limitations has expired?

how many years has it been since 2 youngsters had some kind of relationship involving more intimate matters? seems like a fly that is turned into an elephant but which is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand now

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang said:
how many years has it been since 2 youngsters had some kind of relationship involving more intimate matters? seems like a fly that is turned into an elephant but which is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand now

According to Ms Blasey Ford's account, what happened when those two "youngsters" got together "many years" ago was that the 17 year-old "youngster" pushed the 15 year-old "youngster" into a room against her will, locked the door, threw her down on a bed against her will, moved on top of her against her will, fondled her through and tried to remove her clothing against her will, covered her mouth when she tried to cry for help against her will, turned up music in the room to cover any other sounds, while one of the 17 year-old "youngster's" friends verbally prodded him on and occasionally jumped onto the pile on the bed, all against her will. Both the 17 year-old "youngster" and his friend laughed throughout the experience... I assume also against her will.

Exactly what part(s) of Blasey Ford's account of what happened to her strikes you as "some kind of relationship involving more intimate matters" that "seems like a fly that (has) turned into an elephant"? In what proportion of your personal "relationships involving more intimate matters" have you acted toward a woman the way the 17 year-old "youngster" allegedly treated Ms. Blasey Ford? If you have male children, did anything you ever taught them about "relationships involving more intimate matters" suggest that you believed it was appropriate to treat women the way the 17 year-old "youngster" allegedly treated Ms. Blasey Ford?

I disagree with you regarding the current relevance of the 17 year-old's conduct. If he behaved as he is alleged to have behaved, he committed a sexual assault and either has lied about it or was too drunk at the time to remember it. I am alarmed that person of such personal history and character could help the Supreme Court render critical decisions about women's rights for decades to come.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@Wolfgang said:
how many years has it been since 2 youngsters had some kind of relationship involving more intimate matters? seems like a fly that is turned into an elephant but which is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand now

According to Ms Blasey Ford's account, what happened when those two "youngsters" got together "many years" ago was that the 17 year-old "youngster" pushed the 15 year-old "youngster" into a room against her will, locked the door, threw her down on a bed against her will, moved on top of her against her will, fondled her through and tried to remove her clothing against her will, covered her mouth when she tried to cry for help against her will, turned up music in the room to cover any other sounds, while one of the 17 year-old "youngster's" friends verbally prodded him on and occasionally jumped onto the pile on the bed, all against her will. Both the 17 year-old "youngster" and his friend laughed throughout the experience... I assume also against her will.

Exactly what part(s) of Blasey Ford's account of what happened to her strikes you as "some kind of relationship involving more intimate matters" that "seems like a fly that (has) turned into an elephant"? In what proportion of your personal "relationships involving more intimate matters" have you acted toward a woman the way the 17 year-old "youngster" allegedly treated Ms. Blasey Ford? If you have male children, did anything you ever taught them about "relationships involving more intimate matters" suggest that you believed it was appropriate to treat women the way the 17 year-old "youngster" allegedly treated Ms. Blasey Ford?

I disagree with you regarding the current relevance of the 17 year-old's conduct. If he behaved as he is alleged to have behaved, he committed a sexual assault and either has lied about it or was too drunk at the time to remember it. I am alarmed that person of such personal history and character could help the Supreme Court render critical decisions about women's rights for decades to come.

At a party she doesn't remember when, where happened, or how she got there. Her story conflicts with what she told a therapist back in 2012, and she refuses to testify unless her demands (that she know will not be met) are met.

Yeah, she needs to either give it up or testify.

Oh and there you go, you ascribed guilt before proof. Way to go Bill your true colors finally show.

C Mc

Does This President Have Any Shame?

How could Christians and evangelicals stand with this man? The Molester in Chief (Trump) tweeted that if there were any truth to Dr. Ford's story charges should have been reported to law enforcement years ago. How dare he makes such statement? In the state, there is no statute of limitations. She can still file charges even if Kavanaugh is seated on the Supreme Court. With the President tweet today, this is likely to happen. Needless to say, there will be an investigation.

Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ms. C. Blasey Ford and she feared for her life. Let her tell her story or he runs the risk of being arrested and indicted while on the "High Court". How can reasonable people not see or understand why Ms. Ford didn't report this incident for over 30 years. It's not too difficult to understand this.

One must not get too close to the tree where the forest can't be seen. Connect some dots with me:

1. Judge C. Thomas sexually harassed (pornography, inappropriate talk, etc.) Anita Hill.
2. Judge Kavanaugh attempted to rape and murder Ms. C. Blasey Ford, as she alleged.
3. Kavanaugh and Thomas attained Catholic Schools. The RCC is still hiding priests and acts.
4. The Catholic Church has a long history and continuous practices of tolerating Pedophile Priests to molest boys and girls. It relocates priests and paid out millions of dollars, most recently, $27 million (NY), in addition to the $3 billion (USA) of hush monies (See Pennsylvania Report); yet an unknown amount of money paid out around the world.
5. The molested, molest! Thomas and Kavanaugh are products of their environment, religion, and educational training. Even young men in Catholic Seminaries are molested. What kind of priests are you think they are going to be? This is not being mean or accusatory, but exposing the common denominator between these two men in view of the Supreme Court.

These two men are the only ones known and exposed. Given the RCC track records, there are many more people from this Institution in government and society who have been damaged from their youth up. This silent and ongoing demoralizing of Americans and people of the world must be called for what it is-- A Global Crisis. This demands worldwide condemnation of the RCC and its cover-ups and hush monies.

Why Ms. Ford didn't report her situation of attempted rape? Well, the same reasons thousands of boys and girls around are just now reporting sexual-abuse by Priests in the Catholic Church and schools. Are all these abused children are not telling the truth, as Mr. Trump said about Ms. Ford not reporting some thirty-five years earlier?

The nature of the abuse and youthfulness would speak to the reasonable and the compassionated. This conflict between Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey Ford, one can't deny, goes back to the institutions (church/school) that fosters Pedophile Priests and cover-ups. This situation needs a thorough and independent investigation, along with the Catholic Church's Priests Sex-crimes. Where are the voices of the "real" Christians of this sin and shame; and the voices of caring citizens of these crimes against humanity?

How can we discuss or debate God, the Bible, grace, salvation, etc., and we can't call sin by its right name and stand with the victims. Love Trump, Kavanaugh, the Republican Party, but don't become complicit, blind to sin, crime, or injustice. CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:

Does This President Have Any Shame?

How could Christians and evangelicals stand with this man? The Molester in Chief (Trump) tweeted that if there were any truth to Dr. Ford's story charges should have been reported to law enforcement years ago. How dare he makes such statement? In the state, there is no statute of limitations. She can still file charges even if Kavanaugh is seated on the Supreme Court. With the President tweet today, this is likely to happen. Needless to say, there will be an investigation.

>

I agree with the President. Waiting almost 40 years is ridiculous.

Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ms. C. Blasey Ford and she feared for her life. Let her tell her story or he runs the risk of being arrested and indicted while on the "High Court". How can reasonable people not see or understand why Ms. Ford didn't report this incident for over 30 years. It's not too difficult to understand this.

We do not know that actually happened. She is refusing to tell her story. Get your facts straight.

One must not get too close to the tree where the forest can't be seen. Connect some dots with me:

1. Judge C. Thomas sexually harassed (pornography, inappropriate talk, etc.) Anita Hill.
2. Judge Kavanaugh attempted to rape and murder Ms. C. Blasey Ford, as she alleged.

We do not know this happened. It likely did not given the inconsistencies with her story.

3. Kavanaugh and Thomas attained Catholic Schools. The RCC is still hiding priests and acts.

Good grief.

4. The Catholic Church has a long history and continuous practices of tolerating Pedophile Priests to molest boys and girls. It relocates priests and paid out millions of dollars, most recently, $27 million (NY), in addition to the $3 billion (USA) of hush monies (See Pennsylvania Report); yet an unknown amount of money paid out around the world.

How is this relevant to Kavanaugh?

5. The molested, molest! Thomas and Kavanaugh are products of their environment, religion, and educational training. Even young men in Catholic Seminaries are molested. What kind of priests are you think they are going to be? This is not being mean or accusatory, but exposing the common denominator between these two men in view of the Supreme Court.

Good grief, pretty bold statement with no proof.

These two men are the only ones known and exposed. Given the RCC track records, there are many more people from this Institution in government and society who have been damaged from their youth up. This silent and ongoing demoralizing of Americans and people of the world must be called for what it is-- A Global Crisis. This demands worldwide condemnation of the RCC and its cover-ups and hush monies.

Agreed on cover ups etc.

Why Ms. Ford didn't report her situation of attempted rape? Well, the same reasons thousands of boys and girls around are just now reporting sexual-abuse by Priests in the Catholic Church and schools. Are all these abused children are not telling the truth, as Mr. Trump said about Ms. Ford not reporting some thirty-five years earlier?

Her story doesn't have credibility. And she is refusing to testify.

The nature of the abuse and youthfulness would speak to the reasonable and the compassionated. This conflict between Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey Ford, one can't deny, goes back to the institutions (church/school) that fosters Pedophile Priests and cover-ups. This situation needs a thorough and independent investigation, along with the Catholic Church's Priests Sex-crimes. Where are the voices of the "real" Christians of this sin and shame; and the voices of caring citizens of these crimes against humanity?

Or it just didn't happen at all.

How can we discuss or debate God, the Bible, grace, salvation, etc., and we can't call sin by its right name and stand with the victims. Love Trump, Kavanaugh, the Republican Party, but don't become complicit, blind to sin, crime, or injustice. CM

Again, it is doubtful the Kavanaugh event even happened.

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:
At a party she doesn't remember when, where happened, or how she got there.

For the third time, reformed, I ask you on what grounds do you have the experience and expertise to decide what victims of sexual assault should be able to remember?

Her story conflicts with what she told a therapist back in 2012

Also for the third time I ask you...

• Are you contending her story differs from her therapist's notes in any substantive way OTHER than the number of people in the room at the time of the attack?
  AND

• In a previous post you claimed that it's "HIGHLY SUSPECT" that, among other things, her story conflicts with her therapist's notes, which record four persons in the room rather than two. How "SUSPECT" would you have considered it had the therapist's notes reported three, not four, others involved?

NOTE: Have you noticed your practice of refusing even to mention the questions you don't want to answer? I've read your chagrin and criticism of other posters when they do that to you, but I've not read your criticism of your own practice. Do you also object to YOUR practice of having to be asked the same question three, four, or five times before you will even mention it, let alone answer?

Yeah, she needs to either give it up or testify.

Negotiations between the committee and her are ongoing. The latest expectation is that the odds of her appearing before the committee in public session are greater than 50/50.

Oh and there you go, you ascribed guilt before proof. Way to go Bill your true colors finally show.

Your criticism is baseless. Not ONCE have I "ascribed guilt before proof." Reread the post to which you responded. Notice these sentences that introduce its critical sections: (emphasis added)

"According to Ms Blasey Ford's account, what happened when those two "youngsters" got together "many years" ago was...."

then...

"If he behaved as he is alleged to have behaved, he committed a sexual assault and either has lied about it or...."

And for about the third time, reformed, I remind you that facts matter.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:
At a party she doesn't remember when, where happened, or how she got there.

For the third time, reformed, I ask you on what grounds do you have the experience and expertise to decide what victims of sexual assault should be able to remember?

It doesn't matter. If she can't remember there is no case.

Her story conflicts with what she told a therapist back in 2012

Also for the third time I ask you...

• Are you contending her story differs from her therapist's notes in any substantive way OTHER than the number of people in the room at the time of the attack?

That's not important. That's a specific details (major in my opinion) that is different.

AND

• In a previous post you claimed that it's "HIGHLY SUSPECT" that, among other things, her story conflicts with her therapist's notes, which record four persons in the room rather than two. How "SUSPECT" would you have considered it had the therapist's notes reported three, not four, others involved?

Red Herring

NOTE: Have you noticed your practice of refusing even to mention the questions you don't want to answer? I've read your chagrin and criticism of other posters when they do that to you, but I've not read your criticism of your own practice. Do you also object to YOUR practice of having to be asked the same question three, four, or five times before you will even mention it, let alone answer?

Are you criticizing me and not my ideas? I guess you broke the guidelines Bill. Hypocrite.

Yeah, she needs to either give it up or testify.

Negotiations between the committee and her are ongoing. The latest expectation is that the odds of her appearing before the committee in public session are greater than 50/50.

Where did you read that? Last I heard she was still making ridiculous demands.

Oh and there you go, you ascribed guilt before proof. Way to go Bill your true colors finally show.

Your criticism is baseless. Not ONCE have I "ascribed guilt before proof." Reread the post to which you responded. Notice these sentences that introduce its critical sections: (emphasis added)

"According to Ms Blasey Ford's account, what happened when those two "youngsters" got together "many years" ago was...."

then...

"If he behaved as he is alleged to have behaved, he committed a sexual assault and either has lied about it or...."

And for about the third time, reformed, I remind you that facts matter.

Upon re-reading I retract my statement.

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

It doesn't matter. If she can't remember there is no case.

It DOES matter because it is common among sexual assault victims to remember some, but not all details of their experiences. As you know from her account, she remembers MANY important details. Your claim, offered in THIS POST, that she offered "no specific details" is clearly not correct.

Is there a "case"? For a criminal prosecution? Perhaps/Probably not. But for just cause to raise doubts about a nominee to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country? I say yes.

That's not important. That's a specific details (major in my opinion) that is different.

So ONE detail changed in the six years since she told the story to her therapist. ONE. We disagree as to whether that's "major."

Red Herring

Another convenient way for you to avoid the question.

If she told her therapist the attack happened in the morning, after breakfast, but then in her public account claimed it happened just before midnight, you'd tell me that's a significant difference, I bet. But if she told her therapist it happened at 11pm, and then in her public account said just before midnight, I bet you'd say that wasn't significant. That's why I asked whether three present rather than four would matter.

Are you criticizing me and not my ideas? I guess you broke the guidelines Bill. Hypocrite.

Again I must ask you to reread the post to which you responded the one in which I wrote... (emphasis added)

"NOTE: Have you noticed your practice of refusing even to mention the questions you don't want to answer? I've read your chagrin and criticism of other posters when they do that to you, but I've not read your criticism of your own practice. Do you also object to YOUR practice of having to be asked the same question three, four, or five times before you will even mention it, let alone answer?"

I am not criticizing YOU. I am clearly criticizing YOUR PRACTICE of refusing to mention, let alone respond to, questions you don't want to answer.

For about the fourth time, reformed, I must remind you that facts matter.

That said, I repeat the questions within that "Note."

Yeah, she needs to either give it up or testify.

Negotiations between the committee and her are ongoing. The latest expectation is that the odds of her appearing before the committee in public session are greater than 50/50.

I consume news from multiple sources, my surmise from those sources is that the odds are >50/50. The Washington Post most recently reported that the committee has offered Wednesday as the hearing date and Blasey Jones testifying first.

Upon re-reading I retract my statement.

Well done. Thanks.

C Mc

Reformed,
Why do I get the impression your responses (to Bill/me) in the thread you appear not to fully grasp the enormity of the topic. Or, are you just being trollish? CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:
Reformed,
Why do I get the impression your responses (to Bill/me) in the thread you appear not to fully grasp the enormity of the topic. Or, are you just being trollish? CM

Oh I grasp it. This is a Democrat operative trying a last ditch effort to keep Kavanaugh out. Nothing more.

GaoLu

Bill_Coley

@reformed said:

Oh I grasp it. This is a Democrat operative trying a last ditch effort to keep Kavanaugh out. Nothing more.

I'll grant you this much, reformed: You HAVE answered CM's question about your grasp of the enormity/significance/magnitude of this this matter. In fact, I have to acknowledge that your response here and in previous posts in this thread makes the answer to CM's question abundantly clear.

reformed

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

Oh I grasp it. This is a Democrat operative trying a last ditch effort to keep Kavanaugh out. Nothing more.

I'll grant you this much, reformed: You HAVE answered CM's question about your grasp of the enormity/significance/magnitude of this this matter. In fact, I have to acknowledge that your response here and in previous posts in this thread makes the answer to CM's question abundantly clear.

I think the ones who do NOT grasp it are you and CM.

C Mc

If Kavanaugh is so clean, why is it that he wouldn't ask for the FBI to investigate the charges? Even if the committee refuses him, it would show an eagerness to clear his name. Unless he has something else to hide. This attempted rape charge is one to be settled right away, one way or the other. Kavanaugh should be seen wanting more than the committee is willing to go or do.

Truth can endure close examination!

Let the FBI investigate these women charges (attempted rape/ exposing himself). Kavanaugh needs his name cleared. Why not sue these women if they are lying? CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:
If Kavanaugh is so clean, why is it that he wouldn't ask for the FBI to investigate the charges? Even if the committee refuses him, it would show an eagerness to clear his name. Unless he has something else to hide. This attempted rape charge is one to be settled right away, one way or the other. Kavanaugh should be seen wanting more than the committee is willing to go or do.

Truth can endure close examination!

Let the FBI investigate these women charges (attempted rape/ exposing himself). Kavanaugh needs his name cleared. Why not sue these women if they are lying? CM

There is nothing to investigate. And he is taking the high road.

C Mc

@reformed said:

@C_M_ said:
If Kavanaugh is so clean, why is it that he wouldn't ask for the FBI to investigate the charges? Even if the committee refuses him, it would show an eagerness to clear his name. Unless he has something else to hide. This attempted rape charge is one to be settled right away, one way or the other. Kavanaugh should be seen wanting more than the committee is willing to go or do.

Truth can endure close examination!

Let the FBI investigate these women charges (attempted rape/ exposing himself). Kavanaugh needs his name cleared. Why not sue these women if they are lying? CM

There is nothing to investigate. And he is taking the high road.

You may regret the above statement. The jury is still out on Kavanaugh's drunken behavior if he has no knowledge of misdeeds. There are another woman (witness/victim) and other witnesses will come forth in the next 48hrs. Let the FBI investigate if one thinks it's false.

Even your Fox News Poll says these hearing needs to be delayed: Women 29%; Men 20% of a 53% overall says these hearings should DELAYED.

PS. Even the high road doesn't mean the FBI can't investigate. Kavanaugh is in denial. There is a sad ending to this nominee. Trump will pull his support for Kavanaugh. CM