Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

[Glenstache]

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..

Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.

It's not very bold.  That number has been debunked.  As far as what constitutes sexual assault, I think reasonable people can disagree at the margins, but I don't think reasonable people agree that cat calling should be considered sexual assault, or at the very least, would be much more interested in the numbers for what is more traditionally thought of as sexual assault than numbers that lump verbal comments and physical attacks in the same category.

Sexual assault is codified in law.  Cat calling is sexual harassment. Neither is ok, but please understand the difference.

Regarding sexual assault, no, in general reasonable people can not disagree 'at the margins'.  If you did not or could not give consent and someone touches your genitals or forces you to touch theirs, that's sexual assault.  There's no legal or moral ambiguity here.  Assault involves intent, a lack of consent, and physical contact.  If those three elements are put together, you've got the legal textbook definition of assault.  If it involves genitals, it's sexual assault.

To sum up: when you intentionally touch someone's privates, and they did not want you to touch them (no consent), OR if force them to touch someone else's - that's sexual assault.

Here is how it is defined in Maryland (home state of Georgetown Prep).
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

Second point to Jrr: you do realize that there is likely a much higher bar to impeachment than there is at present, right?  Impeachment from the SCOTUS would be a huge deal and is frankly just extremely unlikely.

[Jrr85]

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..

Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.

It's not very bold.  That number has been debunked.  As far as what constitutes sexual assault, I think reasonable people can disagree at the margins, but I don't think reasonable people agree that cat calling should be considered sexual assault, or at the very least, would be much more interested in the numbers for what is more traditionally thought of as sexual assault than numbers that lump verbal comments and physical attacks in the same category.

Sexual assault is codified in law.  Cat calling is sexual harassment. Neither is ok, but please understand the difference.

Regarding sexual assault, no, in general reasonable people can not disagree 'at the margins'.  If you did not or could not give consent and someone touches your genitals or forces you to touch theirs, that's sexual assault.  There's no legal or moral ambiguity here.  Assault involves intent, a lack of consent, and physical contact.  If those three elements are put together, you've got the legal textbook definition of assault.  If it involves genitals, it's sexual assault.

To sum up: when you intentionally touch someone's privates, and they did not want you to touch them (no consent), OR if force them to touch someone else's - that's sexual assault.

Then you are agreeing with me that the 1/4 number is ridiculous, correct?  Because the 1/4 number isn't looking at anything near the legal definition of sexual assault.  That's something closer to 1 in 164 women if you're looking at college aged students and 1 in 132 if you are looking at college aged women who are not students.  https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176

[bacchi]

Speculation: Flake is a "nay." That gives cover to the red-state Democrats, leaving the vote to Collins or Murkowsi.

[Jrr85]

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..

Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.

It's not very bold.  That number has been debunked.  As far as what constitutes sexual assault, I think reasonable people can disagree at the margins, but I don't think reasonable people agree that cat calling should be considered sexual assault, or at the very least, would be much more interested in the numbers for what is more traditionally thought of as sexual assault than numbers that lump verbal comments and physical attacks in the same category.

Sexual assault is codified in law.  Cat calling is sexual harassment. Neither is ok, but please understand the difference.

Regarding sexual assault, no, in general reasonable people can not disagree 'at the margins'.  If you did not or could not give consent and someone touches your genitals or forces you to touch theirs, that's sexual assault.  There's no legal or moral ambiguity here.  Assault involves intent, a lack of consent, and physical contact.  If those three elements are put together, you've got the legal textbook definition of assault.  If it involves genitals, it's sexual assault.

To sum up: when you intentionally touch someone's privates, and they did not want you to touch them (no consent), OR if force them to touch someone else's - that's sexual assault.

Here is how it is defined in Maryland (home state of Georgetown Prep).
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

Second point to Jrr: you do realize that there is likely a much higher bar to impeachment than there is at present, right?  Impeachment from the SCOTUS would be a huge deal and is frankly just extremely unlikely.

If Kavanaugh was going around routinely gang raping people like the person claims (or even just being involved in it), that's not going to be a hard bar to clear.  And it should be hard to find a few victims if it was as common as she claimed. 

That's very different from Ford's allegation, where even if she had a way to credibly prove her allegations, there would potentially be a question in some people's minds regarding whether a drunken groping from more than 30 years ago is disqualifying. 

[GuitarStv]

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

[Jrr85]

  After her testimony and kavanaughs, they can decide how to proceed. 

Except they have already decided how to proceed. They are voting tomorrow. They are refusing an investigation.  You say there needs to be a reason for an investigation? How about 3 independent allegations?  Investigate those.  If they are all false, the FBI will be able to work that out. That's what they do!

Scheduling a vote is not a determination on how to proceed.  IF there is something in the testimony that they think provides an avenue for them to prove or disprove the allegations (or Kavanaugh says somethign to make them think the allegations are likely true), then they can postpone the vote or vote against him.

But it was a last second allegation

Last second to an artificial timeline Grassley and McConnell have come up with.  The supreme court nominee does not need to be confirmed within a certain time limit. There is plenty of time for the investigation to take place.  THEY are the ones insisting on rushing this, and not allowing the claims to be investigated.

They are not rushing it.  The nomination was made on July 9th.  The committee hearings began September 4th.  If they don't hold to any timeline, then the vote will never take place.  There can always be a claim submitted the eve before the vote to restart the process if you take the position that the position doesn't have to be filled in any particular time (which is correct as a matter of law but that doesn't mean the president and senate shouldn't get to vote on a nominee). 

Do you understand the incredible bravery it takes of women to voice their allegations? These women have received death threats; they have become national figures they might not want to be, and they have to relive their trauma in an incredibly public setting. 

As a trauma victim (though not of sexual violence)- it already haunts me; having to do so on a national stage would be unbearable. That's why most women stay quiet.



(Also- keep in mind in most places urinating in public can put you on the sex offenders list. So shoving your genitals into someone's face...clearly sexual assault. Forcing yourself sexually onto a person, clearly sexual assault. These aren't grey areas.)

It is incredibly hard to go public with a sexual assault allegation.  It is incredibly hard to be smeared with a false claim.  There is no "fair" solution as to how to handle allegations from three decades ago.  It's perfectly understandable that people might stay quiet.  But it is also a necessity that claims from thirty years ago be treated with healthy skepticism, as there is no feasible way for the accused to disprove the allegations, especially when they are vague on teh time or place. 

[Jrr85]

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?  [/s]

MOD EDIT: No, thanks.

[runbikerun]

There's nothing healthy about the scepticism on display here. This is the same relentless refusal to listen to credible allegations of sexual assaults that pops up every time something like this comes up. Everything so far has been consistent with how sexual assault survivors behave, and inconsistent with behaviours seen in false allegations.

But this happens Every. Fucking. Time. that allegations are made. No matter how clear it is that the man in question has a case to answer, there will ALWAYS be a group of people furiously arguing that it's all a violation of his good name. Every fucking time.

[runbikerun]

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

This is a shitty response to a serious question. In your post immediately preceding, you indicated pretty clearly that you thought there may be a case that allegations going back thirty years are not relevant. You were then asked to quantify that, and instead, you decided to pretend you were the victim of a particularly loaded example of a logical fallacy.

[shenlong55]

But it was a last second allegation

Last second to an artificial timeline Grassley and McConnell have come up with.  The supreme court nominee does not need to be confirmed within a certain time limit. There is plenty of time for the investigation to take place.  THEY are the ones insisting on rushing this, and not allowing the claims to be investigated.

They are not rushing it.  The nomination was made on July 9th.  The committee hearings began September 4th.  If they don't hold to any timeline, then the vote will never take place.  There can always be a claim submitted the eve before the vote to restart the process if you take the position that the position doesn't have to be filled in any particular time (which is correct as a matter of law but that doesn't mean the president and senate shouldn't get to vote on a nominee).

And the leadership of the senate can always choose to hold the vote anyways.  What's your point?

[sol]

If Kavanaugh was going around routinely gang raping people like the person claims

She didn't claim that Kavanaugh went around gang raping people.  She claimed that she personally was gang raped at a party Kavanaugh attended, by Kavanaugh's friends, and that she saw that he was present before losing consciousness in the middle of it. 

So, best case scenario here, Brett knew what was happening and didn't stop it, but didn't personally rape her?  That's what you're hoping is the truth?  Let's make that man a judge!

there would potentially be a question in some people's minds regarding whether a drunken groping from more than 30 years ago is disqualifying.

I think we've already established that it's not disqualifying, in the eyes of republican senators, for a supreme court nominee, or for a senate candidate from Alabama, or for a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that those same republican senators absolutely demanded that Al Franken resign in disgrace after he admitted to over-the-clothes touching the boob of a coworker while she slept, because he thought it was a funny joke.  What Kavanaugh did was arguably worse (because it was private and aggressive and demeaning and violent) than what Franket did (which was sexist and inappropriate but done in jest to someone he liked and respected, and involved no use of physical force, or removal of clothing) and yet Franken got rightfully booted and Kavanaugh is getting promoted.

[I'm a red panda]

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

These questions aren't remotely the same.
One is a trap question; the other asking about a statue of limitations, essentially (but not on criminal prosecution).

[nereo]

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

Let's follow the forum rules.
Attack an argument, not a forum member (2)
Be respectful.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

[Jrr85]

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

This is a shitty response to a serious question. In your post immediately preceding, you indicated pretty clearly that you thought there may be a case that allegations going back thirty years are not relevant. You were then asked to quantify that, and instead, you decided to pretend you were the victim of a particularly loaded example of a logical fallacy.

No, I responded to Sol who said the bar for impeachment would be higher, and I explained that it wouldn't matter for the gang rape claims, but that some people might think the allegations by Ford were disqualifying even if true.  Didn't state my opinion at all.  Just recognized the reality that some senators (who would ultimately vote on impeachment) might not think a drunken groping from 30 years ago disqualifies him such that he should be impeached. 

Even if I had stated my opinon, the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.   

[Jrr85]

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

Let's follow the forum rules.
Attack an argument, not a forum member (2)
Be respectful.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

Was that a response to me?  Clearly I was attacking the argument. 

If it was a response to GuitarStv, he/she used a stale rhetorical trick.  I'm not sure that's a personal attack.

[I'm a red panda]

Even if I had stated my opinon, the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

No it's not.  The first question the answer is "There is no point when it is OK." 
There isn't an answer to "When did you stop beating your wife?" if you never started.

[partgypsy]

Impeaching who, a justice? We are not talking about impeaching him. We are talking about not giving him the biggest promotion in his life. And I wouldn't characterize what he did to Ford as "drunken groping". She was pushed in a room (some places that's considered kidnapping to be moved from one place to another)* hand placed over her mouth so she wouldn't make a noise. That's just messed up if you consider that "drunken groping". Why even put the "drunken" in front of it? Does that make it better?
*eta that action would not constitute kidnapping. But it would be considered false imprisonment (felony).

BTW I personally feel from even statements from his own friends, accquantices and roommates, that he often was so drunk, he may not remember what he did or how he acted. And that when he was drunk he was often agressive and belligerent. So how can he answer so confidently that he "always treated women with dignity and respect?"

I am confident he will be nominated for supreme court judge. As others have noted, many people including Trump have too much riding on him not to be nominated, and anyone who does not vote yes will be heavily punished by thier party. There is no room for independent thought. 

[intellectsucks]

"Presumption of innocence" applies in criminal proceedings, not in what amounts to a high stakes job interview.

This is not a criminal trial. It does not follow the same principles as a criminal trial.

Yes.

Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.

Then you hear this:

- A woman says your top pick tried to sexually assault her, pinning her down on a bed at a party when they were in high school, a story she told a therapist years ago.
-A second woman says he exposed himself to her as a student at Yale. Classmates gossiped about it for decades.
-A third woman says your applicant was a bystander when she was, in her words, “gang raped” at a high school party. She says that she saw him once in a line of boys preparing to gang rape another student.
-She also said that he and his friends spiked drinks with drugs and alcohol to make women unable fight off unwanted sexual advances.
-In response to all of this, your top pick presents himself as a virgin choirboy. Half a dozen of his old friends gasp, telling the Washington Post that, in fact, he was an aggressive “sloppy drunk” for years.

Do you hire him, anyway?

- Ezra Klein

For the record, I think that they should dump kavanaugh and move on to the next nominee.  That said, I think that this comparison, while mostly a good one, lacks certain key elements. The main one being an adversarial group whose intention is to disrupt the process by any means necessary. If I was reasonably sure that this adversarial group would produce a dubious claim no matter which candidate I picked, then I would be much more inclined to seriously weigh the veracity of the accusations against my standout.

[Kris]

"Presumption of innocence" applies in criminal proceedings, not in what amounts to a high stakes job interview.

This is not a criminal trial. It does not follow the same principles as a criminal trial.

Yes.

Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.

Then you hear this:

- A woman says your top pick tried to sexually assault her, pinning her down on a bed at a party when they were in high school, a story she told a therapist years ago.
-A second woman says he exposed himself to her as a student at Yale. Classmates gossiped about it for decades.
-A third woman says your applicant was a bystander when she was, in her words, “gang raped” at a high school party. She says that she saw him once in a line of boys preparing to gang rape another student.
-She also said that he and his friends spiked drinks with drugs and alcohol to make women unable fight off unwanted sexual advances.
-In response to all of this, your top pick presents himself as a virgin choirboy. Half a dozen of his old friends gasp, telling the Washington Post that, in fact, he was an aggressive “sloppy drunk” for years.

Do you hire him, anyway?

- Ezra Klein

For the record, I think that they should dump kavanaugh and move on to the next nominee.  That said, I think that this comparison, while mostly a good one, lacks certain key elements. The main one being an adversarial group whose intention is to disrupt the process by any means necessary. If I was reasonably sure that this adversarial group would produce a dubious claim no matter which candidate I picked, then I would be much more inclined to seriously weigh the veracity of the accusations against my standout.

That is an assumption. One that seems fairly unfounded, given that Neil Gorsuch now sits on the Supreme Court.

[sol]

the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

No, it's not at all the same. 

The correct answer to "when does sexual assault become acceptable" is "never".  You seem to think it's "approximately 20-30 years".

There is no correct answer to "when did you stop beating your wife" because any answer at all an admission of guilt.  If you say "never" then you are implying that you still beat your wife, and that's the point of the rhetorical question, to highlight how unfair it is to ask such a question.  The question you were asked, by contrast, is absolutely fair and has a variety of good answers, none of which you have given. 

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?

[I'm a red panda]

Impeaching who, a justice? We are not talking about impeaching him. We are talking about not giving him the biggest promotion in his life. And I wouldn't characterize what he did to Ford as "drunken groping". She was pushed in a room (some places that's considered kidnapping to be moved from one place to another) hand placed over her mouth so she wouldn't make a noise. That's just messed up if you consider that "drunken groping". Why even put the "drunken" in front of it? Does that make it better?

BTW I personally feel from even statements from his own friends, accquantices and roommates, that he often was so drunk, he may not remember what he did or how he acted. And that when he was drunk he was often agressive and belligerent. So how can he answer so confidently that he "always treated women with dignity and respect?"

I am confident he will be nominated for supreme court judge. As others have noted, many people including Trump have too much riding on him not to be nominated, and anyone who does not vote yes will be heavily punished by thier party. There is no room for independent thought.

I assume you mean apppointed?  He has already been nominated.

[Roadrunner53]

Bill Cosby found out.

[sol]

I think that this comparison, while mostly a good one, lacks certain key elements. The main one being an adversarial group whose intention is to disrupt the process by any means necessary.

I agree that the comparision to a F500 CEO interview lacks a certain key element, but I disagree on which one.  In my view, Klein's comparison isn't complete without highlighting that the Fortune 500 company for which this alleged abuser is interviewing plays a key role in shaping national policy about women's right and access to medical care. 

On a smaller scale, for example, do you think Planned Parenthood should hire someone with a laundry list of sexual assault allegations against him to lead their organization?  Maybe the Battered Women Justice Project should hire him instead?  Because that's a huge part of what the Supreme Court does, and putting Kavanaugh up for that position is just a big FU finger in the eye of 51% of the American population.

[Jrr85]

If Kavanaugh was going around routinely gang raping people like the person claims

She didn't claim that Kavanaugh went around gang raping people.  She claimed that she personally was gang raped at a party Kavanaugh attended, by Kavanaugh's friends, and that she saw that he was present before losing consciousness in the middle of it. 

So, best case scenario here, Brett knew what was happening and didn't stop it, but didn't personally rape her?  That's what you're hoping is the truth?  Let's make that man a judge!

  yes, she claimed Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape.  It's paragraph 12 of her affidavit.  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/read-full-sworn-statement-from-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick.html

there would potentially be a question in some people's minds regarding whether a drunken groping from more than 30 years ago is disqualifying.

I think we've already established that it's not disqualifying, in the eyes of republican senators, for a supreme court nominee, or for a senate candidate from Alabama, or for a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that those same republican senators absolutely demanded that Al Franken resign in disgrace after he admitted to over-the-clothes touching the boob of a coworker while she slept, because he thought it was a funny joke.  What Kavanaugh did was arguably worse (because it was private and aggressive and demeaning and violent) than what Franket did (which was sexist and inappropriate but done in jest to someone he liked and respected, and involved no use of physical force, or removal of clothing) and yet Franken got rightfully booted and Kavanaugh is getting promoted.

Franken resigned because of pressure from democrats.  Some republicans were trying to make democrats play by their own rules, but the reason they were successful is because Democrats pressured him because they didn't want him to detract from their arguments against Roy Moore.  I'm not a fan of Franken, but he should not have resigned (although I thought he was just hovering his hands over her boobs to make it look like he was groping her?  If he actually grabbed them while she was asleep, that's outside the bounds of just a crude and stupid joke). 

[GuitarStv]

That's very different from Ford's allegation, where even if she had a way to credibly prove her allegations, there would potentially be a question in some people's minds regarding whether a drunken groping from more than 30 years ago is disqualifying.

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

It was a serious question, but poorly worded and overly confrontational.

I don't think I personally know anyone who would say that sexual assault crimes are unimportant after a period of time, so am unfamiliar with this concept.  You're claiming that in "some people's minds" 30 year old sexual assault doesn't matter.  I'm asking what is the age limit or point at which sexual assault stops mattering?

Many priests weren't charged with sexual assault for 30 years . . . but there was still an awful lot of widespread condemnation of their actions.  Is the time limit just for assault on women?  Can you clarify your comment?

[former player]

"Presumption of innocence" applies in criminal proceedings, not in what amounts to a high stakes job interview.

This is not a criminal trial. It does not follow the same principles as a criminal trial.

Yes.

Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.

Then you hear this:

- A woman says your top pick tried to sexually assault her, pinning her down on a bed at a party when they were in high school, a story she told a therapist years ago.
-A second woman says he exposed himself to her as a student at Yale. Classmates gossiped about it for decades.
-A third woman says your applicant was a bystander when she was, in her words, “gang raped” at a high school party. She says that she saw him once in a line of boys preparing to gang rape another student.
-She also said that he and his friends spiked drinks with drugs and alcohol to make women unable fight off unwanted sexual advances.
-In response to all of this, your top pick presents himself as a virgin choirboy. Half a dozen of his old friends gasp, telling the Washington Post that, in fact, he was an aggressive “sloppy drunk” for years.

Do you hire him, anyway?

- Ezra Klein

For the record, I think that they should dump kavanaugh and move on to the next nominee.  That said, I think that this comparison, while mostly a good one, lacks certain key elements. The main one being an adversarial group whose intention is to disrupt the process by any means necessary. If I was reasonably sure that this adversarial group would produce a dubious claim no matter which candidate I picked, then I would be much more inclined to seriously weigh the veracity of the accusations against my standout.

What you seem to be saying is that you would be more inclined to doubt the claims against Kavanaugh if you thought the Democrats would start a dirty tricks campaign against any candidate put forward.

To which it is only necessary to point out that there is no evidence of a Democrat dirty tricks campaign against any Supreme Court nominee, including Kavanaugh.   So your point is a pointless one.

[sol]

yes, she claimed Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape.  It's paragraph 12 of her affidavit.  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/read-full-sworn-statement-from-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick.html

You've misunderstood.  That paragraph says Kavanaugh helped to get girls drunk so that the boys could have sex with them, and that she saw Kavanaugh lined up outside the room of another woman who was inebriated, not that she witnessed Kavanaugh rape her or that she was herself raped by Kavanaugh.

Franken resigned because of pressure from democrats. 

Right, that's the key distinction I was trying to make.  Republicans don't care about sexual assault.  There are no conservative constituents complaining about the party nominating serial sexual abusers.  Far from being penalized at the polls, republicans found electoral success with a serial philanderer with 19 sexual assault allegations against him.  It's a feature, not a bug!

Except some republican senators do claim to care about sexual assault, when it's a Al Franken or Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton.  Just not when it's Donald Trump or Roy Moore or Brett Kavanaugh or Joe Barton or Dennis Hastert.  And in the current debate, it's seeminly hypocritcal that some of the same individual senators who cried bloody murder about Franken last year are voting to promote Kavanaugh this year.  I'm looking at you, Susan Collins.

[nereo]

What you seem to be saying is that you would be more inclined to doubt the claims against Kavanaugh if you thought the Democrats would start a dirty tricks campaign against any candidate put forward.

To which it is only necessary to point out that there is no evidence of a Democrat dirty tricks campaign against any Supreme Court nominee, including Kavanaugh.   So your point is a pointless one.

Or to further this point - unless you are allege otherwise, Dems did not attempt any 'dirty tricks' against Gorsuch or Alito or Roberts.
There's been no evidence put forward that Dems are behind these allegations - only that the timing was inconvenient for the committee and may have been influenced to maximize political impact.  But unless the accusations themselves are politically motivated and untrue the point is moot.

[Jrr85]

the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

No, it's not at all the same. 

The correct answer to "when does sexual assault become acceptable" is "never".  You seem to think it's "approximately 20-30 years".

There is no correct answer to "when did you stop beating your wife" because any answer at all an admission of guilt.  If you say "never" then you are implying that you still beat your wife, and that's the point of the rhetorical question, to highlight how unfair it is to ask such a question.  The question you were asked, by contrast, is absolutely fair and has a variety of good answers, none of which you have given. 

  ETA:  The point of both questions is the same.  The "when did you start beating your wife question" is more "clever," but they both are essentially an accusation formed as a question.

Stricken because I read an intent into the question that was not there per GuitrSTv's subsequent comment. 

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?

  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence. 

[former player]

the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

No, it's not at all the same. 

The correct answer to "when does sexual assault become acceptable" is "never".  You seem to think it's "approximately 20-30 years".

There is no correct answer to "when did you stop beating your wife" because any answer at all an admission of guilt.  If you say "never" then you are implying that you still beat your wife, and that's the point of the rhetorical question, to highlight how unfair it is to ask such a question.  The question you were asked, by contrast, is absolutely fair and has a variety of good answers, none of which you have given. 

  ETA:  The point of both questions is the same.  The "when did you start beating your wife question" is more "clever," but they both are essentially an accusation formed as a question.

Stricken because I read an intent into the question that was not there per GuitrSTv's subsequent comment. 

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?

  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.

What is the relevance of your examples?  I'm not seeing any connection between them and what Kavanaugh did, which was to carry on even when his victim was screaming and put his hand over her mouth to silence her so that he could carry on trying to rape her.

[sol]

If we might pause for a moment from the fun of arguing with Kavanaugh's defenders, is anyone watching Ford's live testimony today?

She seems pretty credible to me.  This does not look like a political hit job at all, it looks like a survivor coming forward under difficult circumstances.  At this point, I think the only way Kavanaugh gets confirmed is if Grassley and friends just come right out and say "we accept that these allegations are truthful, and we're going to confirm him anyway because we don't care about his history of sexually abusing women."  They can probably muscle senators Collins and Murkowski into going along with it, with appropriate threats to their careers.

[nereo]

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?

  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.

This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.

[I'm a red panda]

If we might pause for a moment from the fun of arguing with Kavanaugh's defenders, is anyone watching Ford's live testimony today?

She seems pretty credible to me.  This does not look like a political hit job at all, it looks like a survivor coming forward under difficult circumstances.  At this point, I think the only way Kavanaugh gets confirmed is if Grassley and friends just come right out and say "we accept that these allegations are truthful, and we're going to confirm him anyway because we don't care about his history of sexually abusing women."  They can probably muscle senators Collins and Murkowski into going along with it, with appropriate threats to their careers.

I agree she seems very credible.
I think it is likely she will convince at least a few republican senators to vote no.

But probably not Joni Ernst " "I am in meetings all day so I'm not watching TV."

[Glenstache]

If we might pause for a moment from the fun of arguing with Kavanaugh's defenders, is anyone watching Ford's live testimony today?

She seems pretty credible to me.  This does not look like a political hit job at all, it looks like a survivor coming forward under difficult circumstances.  At this point, I think the only way Kavanaugh gets confirmed is if Grassley and friends just come right out and say "we accept that these allegations are truthful, and we're going to confirm him anyway because we don't care about his history of sexually abusing women."  They can probably muscle senators Collins and Murkowski into going along with it, with appropriate threats to their careers.

They may have made the political calculus that they needed to have a good reason to ditch Kavanaugh... that if they gave up too easily it would hurt them more in the midterms, just a few weeks away. I think that if they are going to dump him, it will happen tomorrow (always good to put out bad news on a Friday) and that Monday will be a fresh nomination to capture/divert the news cycle.

[GuitarStv]

All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence. 

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we are OK'ing non-consensual sexual assault if we believe that the person was young and horny, and hoping to hook-up.  This sounds an awful lot like saying 'boys will be boys' from where I'm sitting.  Assault is assault - regardless of perceived motive of the offender.

In Kavenaugh's case, this isn't even an issue of course.  He doesn't meet the 'kinda OK assault' criteria as defined.

I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea of excusing one's actions due to their chosen level of inebriation.  Getting drunk and driving is a choice that holds the same moral ground in my mind as purposely running over a pedestrian.  The fact that sometimes you can get away with it doesn't make it morally better.  You choose to drink, and you choose the amount you drink.  You choose to pick up the keys.  You know that you're doing something unsafe that risks the lives of others by doing so.

[Jrr85]

yes, she claimed Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape.  It's paragraph 12 of her affidavit.  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/read-full-sworn-statement-from-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick.html

You've misunderstood.  That paragraph says Kavanaugh helped to get girls drunk so that the boys could have sex with them, and that she saw Kavanaugh lined up outside the room of another woman who was inebriated, not that she witnessed Kavanaugh rape her or that she was herself raped by Kavanaugh.

 

The entire Paragraph 12:  I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be "gang raped" in a side room or bedroom by a "train" of numerous boys.  I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their "turn" with a girl inside the room.  These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh."

That's not an allegation that Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape?  That doesn't seem like a tough syllogism.  She claims Kavanaugh caused girls to be inebriated so they could be gang raped in a side room by a train of boys.  That boys lined up outside those rooms waiting to take turns with the girls inside the room.  And that Kavanaugh was one of those boys.  How is that not an allegation that he participated in at least one gang rape?   

Franken resigned because of pressure from democrats. 

Right, that's the key distinction I was trying to make.  Republicans don't care about sexual assault.  There are no conservative constituents complaining about the party nominating serial sexual abusers.  Far from being penalized at the polls, republicans found electoral success with a serial philanderer with 19 sexual assault allegations against him.  It's a feature, not a bug!

Except some republican senators do claim to care about sexual assault, when it's a Al Franken or Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton.  Just not when it's Donald Trump or Roy Moore or Brett Kavanaugh or Joe Barton or Dennis Hastert.  And in the current debate, it's seeminly hypocritcal that some of the same individual senators who cried bloody murder about Franken last year are voting to promote Kavanaugh this year.  I'm looking at you, Susan Collins.

  You are atlking about the party of Bill Clinton.  A real credibly accused rapist that was suspended from the bar for lying under oath.  The reason Franken resigned is that democrats didn't care about Franken.  He wasn't particularly helpful to them other than providing another vote in the senate, and they were going to get that vote anyway because it was extremely likely another democrat would replace him.  Bob Menendez is going to be re-elected.  Keith Ellison is likely going to be elected (granted that's domestic violence and not sexual assault I think).  People on both sides of the aisle care to a point and are willing to compromise to a point, depending on what they view as being at stake. 

[nereo]

If we might pause for a moment from the fun of arguing with Kavanaugh's defenders, is anyone watching Ford's live testimony today?

I have it on in the background and am watching it as time allows. I agree I find her credible. She comes off as a bit timid and uncomfortable of all the attention, and has been very clear throughout. Her explanations for why and how she reported her alleged assault seem like a path any educated person might take.  A few of the Dems (Booker, Harris) couldn't resist the chance to heap glittering praise on her in their moment to 'own the mike'.

What's been most interesting to me is the rather steady, non-confrontational approach that the GOP representative has taken towards asking questions. She's been probing for possible alternative motives or holes in her story but without finding much she hasn't been overly aggressive. I'm guessing the GOP is hyper-aware of how bad it would look to badger a white woman who's alleging sexual assault on national TV.

[redbirdfan]

This is INSANE.  I have been to several high school parties.  I could not give you the address of most of them UNLESS they were at the house of a friend.  Can Graham really say that he's never been hanging out and someone says, "hey, let's go to so and so's house?"  I know i did.  I can't give you an addresses.  I COULD tell you that I went from the library so it's gotta be within X distance of the library.  I COULD tell you that I hung out by a fire pit in the backyard and they had a purple fence, etc.   

Full disclosure: I'm a Republican.  I want a conservative justice to be seated.  Kavanaugh isn't worth it.  You will have to have get a bunch of Republican senators to man-splain that Yes, something happened to her, but she can't know that it was Kavanaugh.  How f-ing out of touch do you have to be to understand that you can know someone without knowing everything they are or were capable of when drunk.  If Kavanaugh had admitted that it could have happened because of his past, I would be on board with him still being seated bc he turned his life around/stopped drinking, etc.  The denial of ever attending such a party with calendar entries of "skis" with the very people in attendance is crazy.  Not calling an eyewitness to testify under oath is crazy if your goal is to get to the truth.  Testifying by letter and then hiding out is not adequate in this situation. 

There are no heroes here.  Democrats should be ashamed for using a victim as a political football.  Republicans should be ashamed for punting on the questioning and plowing forward with Kavanaugh when there is a significant chance that he 1) did assault Ford; 2) may have done a number of things while heavily intoxicated that haven't come out yet that he really doesn't remember; and 3) has given less than completely honest testimony re: stolen documents and his days in the Bush White House.

I feel awful for Kavanaugh.  By all accounts he is a talented jurist who has turned his life around post marriage/fatherhood.  That's necessary but not sufficient.  His confirmation isn't worth it.  His life will not be ruined by not being appointed to the Supreme Court.  This isn't worth hoping a Democrat-majority House doesn't start sending out subpoenas for Judge or the next Democrat president doesn't start releasing documents related to his time in the Bush White House. 

The Democrats played a dirty game...that they won.  The same is true for the Republicans with Garland.  Cut bait and move on. 

 

[sol]

I think that if they are going to dump him, it will happen tomorrow (always good to put out bad news on a Friday) and that Monday will be a fresh nomination to capture/divert the news cycle.

Well it damn well better happen today or tomorrow morning, because the McConnell has scheduled the confirmation vote for tomorrow and has given no signs of backing down from that.

Personally, I don't see the harm in stalling it for a week so the FBI can do a proper investigation.  Just vote next Friday, Mitch.  What are you so afraid of?

[I'm a red panda]

I think that if they are going to dump him, it will happen tomorrow (always good to put out bad news on a Friday) and that Monday will be a fresh nomination to capture/divert the news cycle.

Well it damn well better happen today or tomorrow morning, because the McConnell has scheduled the confirmation vote for tomorrow and has given no signs of backing down from that.

Personally, I don't see the harm in stalling it for a week so the FBI can do a proper investigation.  Just vote next Friday, Mitch.  What are you so afraid of?

Which is insane, since at least one senator has admitted to not paying attention to this committee hearing at all.

[bacchi]

A few Republican Governors are calling for a delay in the vote and even Chris Wallace on Fox is calling it a "disaster" for Republicans.

Kavanaugh is done. Put a fork in him.

[GuitarStv]

You are atlking about the party of Bill Clinton.  A real credibly accused rapist that was suspended from the bar for lying under oath.  The reason Franken resigned is that democrats didn't care about Franken.  He wasn't particularly helpful to them other than providing another vote in the senate, and they were going to get that vote anyway because it was extremely likely another democrat would replace him.  Bob Menendez is going to be re-elected.  Keith Ellison is likely going to be elected (granted that's domestic violence and not sexual assault I think).  People on both sides of the aisle care to a point and are willing to compromise to a point, depending on what they view as being at stake.

Clinton was suspended for lying under oath about having an affair with Lewinsky.  Was that not generally considered to be consensual (although I can see how one could reasonably argue statutory rape in the case)?

[Glenstache]

Whoa. Kavanaugh's opening statement is is surprisingly political for anything associated with a position that is supposed to be apolitical, even if just as a fig leaf.

[JLee]

Whoa. Kavanaugh's opening statement is is surprisingly political for anything associated with a position that is supposed to be apolitical, even if just as a fig leaf.

And he just said "what goes around comes around."

Heh.

[Kris]

Yeah. It'll be interesting to see how "belligerent anger" as a chosen tone is going to work out for him.

[JLee]

Yeah. It'll be interesting to see how "belligerent anger" as a chosen tone is going to work out for him.

If he's so adamant about both sides being heard, why isn't he pushing for an FBI investigation to clear his good name?

..just kidding, we all know why.

[nereo]

You are atlking about the party of Bill Clinton.  A real credibly accused rapist that was suspended from the bar for lying under oath.  The reason Franken resigned is that democrats didn't care about Franken.  He wasn't particularly helpful to them other than providing another vote in the senate, and they were going to get that vote anyway because it was extremely likely another democrat would replace him.  Bob Menendez is going to be re-elected.  Keith Ellison is likely going to be elected (granted that's domestic violence and not sexual assault I think).  People on both sides of the aisle care to a point and are willing to compromise to a point, depending on what they view as being at stake.

Clinton was suspended for lying under oath about having an affair with Lewinsky.  Was that not generally considered to be consensual (although I can see how one could reasonably argue statutory rape in the case)?

The problem with the Clinton-Lewinsky dynamic is that she was an intern in the WH while he was president. Due to the power dynamic, she was subservient to him (and not in a sexual way). In order for one to be able to freely give consent, he or she must also be able to freely refuse, without fear of penalty.

[Jrr85]

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?

  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.

This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.

I wasn't trying to connect it to anything Kavanaugh did because I have no way of knowing what he did.  I was just talking in generalities and trying to make it in the ball park of what may have happened. 

And what Ford accused Kavanaugh of is actual sexual assault.  I'm not sure even if you take her statements as 100% factual that it constitutes attempted rape.  It's certainly possible that's what he was intending to rape her, but there doesn't seem to be a way to tell from her description.  Maybe she had a sense of what he intended and she was correct, or maybe she feared it even though an objective observer would not have classified it that way. 

[Jrr85]

You are atlking about the party of Bill Clinton.  A real credibly accused rapist that was suspended from the bar for lying under oath.  The reason Franken resigned is that democrats didn't care about Franken.  He wasn't particularly helpful to them other than providing another vote in the senate, and they were going to get that vote anyway because it was extremely likely another democrat would replace him.  Bob Menendez is going to be re-elected.  Keith Ellison is likely going to be elected (granted that's domestic violence and not sexual assault I think).  People on both sides of the aisle care to a point and are willing to compromise to a point, depending on what they view as being at stake.

Clinton was suspended for lying under oath about having an affair with Lewinsky.  Was that not generally considered to be consensual (although I can see how one could reasonably argue statutory rape in the case)?

I was referring to Juanita Broderick.  I was thinking that his license was suspending for lying under oath about his actions with her in a civil suit by Paula Jones, but i think you are right it was about Lewinsky (but I think still in the civil suit by Jones?)

[nereo]

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?

  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.

This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.

I wasn't trying to connect it to anything Kavanaugh did because I have no way of knowing what he did.  I was just talking in generalities and trying to make it in the ball park of what may have happened. 

And what Ford accused Kavanaugh of is actual sexual assault.  I'm not sure even if you take her statements as 100% factual that it constitutes attempted rape.  It's certainly possible that's what he was intending to rape her, but there doesn't seem to be a way to tell from her description.  Maybe she had a sense of what he intended and she was correct, or maybe she feared it even though an objective observer would not have classified it that way.

Ok, but it isn't you or I who is alleging sexual assault and attempted rape.  Ford is. By definition 'attempted rape' is when the assailant did not succeed in penetrating his or her victim. Ford's allegation is that Kavanaugh and Judge pushed her into a room and locked the door.  Kavanaugh held her down on the bed and ground his hips into her pelvis.  When she tried to scream Kavanaugh covered her mouth and made it difficult to breathe, and she feared that Kavanaugh might accidentally kill her.  She states quite clearly "I believed he was going to rape me."  We also have Ramirez and Swetnick both alleging sexual assault.


Here's Ford's testimony on the event - she clearly states she thinks he was going to rape her:

Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.