I just wish people could spend a year in a sex crime courtroom, and realize that this is much ado about absolutely nothing.
Well, I haven't done that... but I have read a hell of a lot of Andrew Vachss's work, as well as his wife Alice Vachss's, and they work extensively in those courtrooms, and they are driven,
buddy. Spend some time in The Zero and see if you don't pick up a few things.
And I have had one girlfriend who got raped by her dad multiple times when she was a kid. I won't even tell you how that one turned out. I have held another girlfriend because I was at her house one night when her old boyfriend showed up, and I wondered why she broke down shaking and crying at the sight of him... and then she told me what he did to her. And I won't tell you much about what went down after that, either. I did have an aunt who got attacked by a guy who broke into her house and brained her with a hammer and then did other things to her while he thought she was dying. My aunt survived with tunnel vision in one eye and no sense of smell. To my knowledge the guy who did it is still in a Texas prison. I did used to work all night at a radio station where a woman known locally as "Champagne Cathy" told me about a couple of cops raping her when she called 911 after a suicide attempt. And those are just a few of the things I've been through with women I've known.
So, sorry, I don't see this as "much ado about absolutely nothing." I'm kind of surprised that you do, either. You've never struck me as the kind of guy who'd shrug off cruelty to a woman. I admit I'm a little taken aback by it. I know you like a good scrap and you like to dig in your heels and play devil's advocate just for the fun of the argument, but, I dunno, dude, I think this is a bridge too far. I'm not trying to "win" an argument or back you down or whatever, I'm just trying to figure out how far you really want to run with this thing... and why.
You use the word attempted rape......how do you make such an outrageous claim?
Because women have testified that he tried to tear their clothes off, or shoved his penis in their face, or gotten girls drunk enough where they didn't know what was going on and pulled a train on them. I mean, Jesus, dude, what should
I call such an aggressive unwanted sexual advance?
I could argue equally that it was playful wrestling on the bed where an intoxicated girl misinterpreted something non sexual with rough housing, including the covering of the mouth. Would I be wrong?
If the woman didn't want it going on and feared for her life, then YES,
absolutely, you would be wrong. And not just a little wrong, but really-really-reaaaaally wrong.
And I'm guessing you missed the part where Kavanaugh was tearing at her clothes? Or shoving his dick in Miss Ramirez's face? How is that "non-sexual"
roughhousing? Would we agree that trying to pull off clothes or exposing one's genitals would not be out of bounds for someone to interpret as "sexual"?
We will never know because courts have learned over thousands of years that we need a gatekeeper on irrelevant evidence.
Is sworn testimony "irrelevant evidence"?
My answer to your question is that this was a juvenile and our entire legal system is based on the irrelevancy of youth.....so much so that these records evaporate after five years.
He wasn't five,
he was 17 to 20. If a five year old grabs a woman's titty or something, that's a much different thing than a 17-year-old doing it. Can we agree on that? We all do dumb things when we're teenagers, it's true. But there's a level of what's ignorant and what's just wrong, there's a limit. When I was 16 I wore Confederate flag tee-shirts and would laugh at racist jokes. I'm now embarrassed by that and think I was stupid and I don't do any of that anymore. So, I was a dumbass in some ways... but I wasn't dumbass enough to try to sexually assault a woman. I knew that
was wrong, even at that age. I think most people have that much sense. If Kavanaugh had, I dunno, said
some sexist things as a kid, which he disavows now, I'd excuse it as, "Yeah, he was a dumb kid." But being in college and trying to tear off someone's clothes or shove his dick in their face? That ain't "oops, silly kid!" stuff.
And then he gets on FOX News and pretends he was Wally Cleaver on top of it.
This man should be confirmed if for no other reason than to assure the rule of law still has meaning in this country and common sense and decency will prevail.
Common sense and decency say that if three women are willing to swear that extremely inappropriate things happened, and other witnesses are willing to corroborate that Kavanaugh lied about his level of drinking back then, then that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Rule of law says you don't lie to congress during a hearing. He did, multiple times. He's misrepresented himself. Whether you want to give him a pass for the allegations of sexual misconduct or not, the fact that he lied still stands.
I have had girls in my dorm room where there was some wrestling and some fun......gosh......I guess I am a rapist.
I can't speak to that because I don't know whether the girls were having fun, too, or just you. We'd have to ask the women who were there. If both parties are roughhousing and are both enjoying it, then it's playing and that's fine. If one's roughhousing and the other's getting manhandled while trying to get away, then it's something else. Is that what this is about? You uncomfortable because you think maybe you did something like he did, and don't want to think the girls involved weren't playing along with it? And if he's okay then you're okay?
I dunno. You know the circumstances of your own story better than I do, but all I know is, more than one woman who "roughhoused" with him say they weren't in on the roughhousing. If it creates a victim, then it isn't play. In Kavanaugh's case, he created victims.