• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Tara Reade is a person who exists

As I explicitly said above, I want you to figured it out for yourself.

I can't figure out in what way the incident was an attempted assault because I don't have all the facts about it. You do.

I don't have all of the facts. I have more than you do, but again, you seem unable or unwilling to admit that a man shoving a woman up against a car in a parking garage and attempting to force her to kiss him is anything more than "unwanted."

I added the fact that he was her superior, that he had a history of sexual harassment, and that he had exhibited a pattern of behavior which is entirely in keeping with the accusation of assault.

Still, you're like "I don't see the problem."


I imagine that if I were able to provide the ambient air temperature and relative humidity in the garage, as well as the make, model and year of the car, you'd still claim you didn't have enough information to make a determination. You're making a mighty effort to shift the goalposts right out of the stadium.


He cornered her in the parking garage after work. He shoved her up against a car. He tried to force her to kiss him. And yet you still insist that you don't see the problem.
 
I don't have all of the facts. I have more than you do, but again, you seem unable or unwilling to admit that a man shoving a woman up against a car in a parking garage and attempting to force her to kiss him is anything more than "unwanted."

See, no. This is a newly revealed fact. You never said he shoved her (which is assault). Look back at your first post.

I added the fact that he was her superior, that he had a history of sexual harassment, and that he had exhibited a pattern of behavior which is entirely in keeping with the accusation of assault.

That he was her superior doesn't make it sexual assault. That he had a history of sexual harrassment doesn't make it sexual assault. That it's consistent with other behaviour doesn't make it sexual assault. You know what made it attempted sexual assault? The shoving you revealed just now.

Still, you're like "I don't see the problem."

See, you don't get to put fake words in scare quotes as if I'd said or implied anything of the sort.

I imagine that if I were able to provide the ambient air temperature and relative humidity in the garage, as well as the make, model and year of the car, you'd still claim you didn't have enough information to make a determination. You're making a mighty effort to shift the goalposts right out of the stadium.


He cornered her in the parking garage after work. He shoved her up against a car. He tried to force her to kiss him. And yet you still insist that you don't see the problem.

You provided only the first fact in your post. If you'd provided these other facts, this ridiculous situation could have been avoided.
 
See, no. This is a newly revealed fact. You never said he shoved her (which is assault). Look back at your first post..

Careful...you're dangerously close to admitting sexual assault is possible.
 
Creepy Joe vs. Confirmed Rapist Trump. No contest.

If what Biden did to Tara Reade is true, then that is not just creepy, its also rape.

And if you kill someone, it's murder. And if you mug someone, it's assault. And if and if and if...

But it's not confirmed. In regard to Trump, however, it has been confirmed by Trump himself that he is a rapist.

But it doesn't matter, of course, since Republican voters clearly don't give a shit about rape. Only Democrats care about rape. Which is why the Trump camp is so desperately pushing the "creepy Joe" imagery; to effect Democratic voters. Because they have nothing else.

Trump got impeached for trying to gin up fake foreign investigations, ffs. That's how far they will go and how terrified they are of Biden.

But in regard to Trump voters, they all just want us to say, "We don't care if Biden raped Reade" so that they can all point their whataboutism fingers. It is always their goal to reduce the left down to their level--to call us deplorable as well--since they're too corrupt and ignorant to rise to ours.

The problem being, of course, that we do in fact care, which is why we have all read Reade's account--and the many problems with it--with great concern. But the discussion can't ever be about the problems with her account; it must ALWAYS be forced into a false equivalence.

Republicans don't give a shit about the truth; they only give a shit about exonerating their guy. Trump's a rapist, so Biden must be a rapist too so that they can all feel smug about Democrats being superior to them. That's what this is all about.

If it were all about a genuine concern over whether or not Reade was raped, then not a single one of these pathetic trolls pretending righteous indignation now would have voted for Trump to begin with.

:confused2:

Did Dems give a F....k about the truth when Kavanagh was being accused? Or what about the Russian hoax, did they give a f...k about the truth or bullshite of that? What a miserable life you must lead having just one eye!
 
As I explicitly said above, I want you to figured it out for yourself.

I can't figure out in what way the incident was an attempted assault because I don't have all the facts about it. You do.

I don't have all of the facts. I have more than you do, but again, you seem unable or unwilling to admit that a man shoving a woman up against a car in a parking garage and attempting to force her to kiss him is anything more than "unwanted."

I added the fact that he was her superior, that he had a history of sexual harassment, and that he had exhibited a pattern of behavior which is entirely in keeping with the accusation of assault.

Still, you're like "I don't see the problem."


I imagine that if I were able to provide the ambient air temperature and relative humidity in the garage, as well as the make, model and year of the car, you'd still claim you didn't have enough information to make a determination. You're making a mighty effort to shift the goalposts right out of the stadium.


He cornered her in the parking garage after work. He shoved her up against a car. He tried to force her to kiss him. And yet you still insist that you don't see the problem.

You're going to have to be really, really wordy, Ford.

I suggest starting with the difference between an office social event at a club where employees were expected to have a few drinks and mingle, and a chance meeting in a parking garage. Then explain the difference between a "pass" at someone and attempting to strongarm them. Only then should you compare and contrast the kiss on the cheek at the social event with a manager using force to get a subordinate employee to kiss him in a parking garage.

Don't skip a step or you'll find yourself right back at square one.
 
I don't have all of the facts. I have more than you do, but again, you seem unable or unwilling to admit that a man shoving a woman up against a car in a parking garage and attempting to force her to kiss him is anything more than "unwanted."

I added the fact that he was her superior, that he had a history of sexual harassment, and that he had exhibited a pattern of behavior which is entirely in keeping with the accusation of assault.

Still, you're like "I don't see the problem."


I imagine that if I were able to provide the ambient air temperature and relative humidity in the garage, as well as the make, model and year of the car, you'd still claim you didn't have enough information to make a determination. You're making a mighty effort to shift the goalposts right out of the stadium.


He cornered her in the parking garage after work. He shoved her up against a car. He tried to force her to kiss him. And yet you still insist that you don't see the problem.

You're going to have to be really, really wordy, Ford.

I suggest starting with the difference between an office social event at a club where employees were expected to have a few drinks and mingle, and a chance meeting in a parking garage. Then explain the difference between a "pass" at someone and attempting to strongarm them. Only then should you compare and contrast the kiss on the cheek at the social event with a manager using force to get a subordinate employee to kiss him in a parking garage.

Don't skip a step or you'll find yourself right back at square one.

It won't matter. To paraphrase the great Paul Simon: A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
 
And if you kill someone, it's murder. And if you mug someone, it's assault. And if and if and if...

But it's not confirmed. In regard to Trump, however, it has been confirmed by Trump himself that he is a rapist.

But it doesn't matter, of course, since Republican voters clearly don't give a shit about rape. Only Democrats care about rape. Which is why the Trump camp is so desperately pushing the "creepy Joe" imagery; to effect Democratic voters. Because they have nothing else.

Trump got impeached for trying to gin up fake foreign investigations, ffs. That's how far they will go and how terrified they are of Biden.

But in regard to Trump voters, they all just want us to say, "We don't care if Biden raped Reade" so that they can all point their whataboutism fingers. It is always their goal to reduce the left down to their level--to call us deplorable as well--since they're too corrupt and ignorant to rise to ours.

The problem being, of course, that we do in fact care, which is why we have all read Reade's account--and the many problems with it--with great concern. But the discussion can't ever be about the problems with her account; it must ALWAYS be forced into a false equivalence.

Republicans don't give a shit about the truth; they only give a shit about exonerating their guy. Trump's a rapist, so Biden must be a rapist too so that they can all feel smug about Democrats being superior to them. That's what this is all about.

If it were all about a genuine concern over whether or not Reade was raped, then not a single one of these pathetic trolls pretending righteous indignation now would have voted for Trump to begin with.

:confused2:

Did Dems give a F....k about the truth when Kavanagh was being accused? Or what about the Russian hoax, did they give a f...k about the truth or bullshite of that? What a miserable life you must lead having just one eye!

Well, caring about the truth might be why the Dems wanted full investigations. Wanting to conceal the truth may be (hint: definitely is) the reason that the GOP did it's best to obstruct any and all investigations and to prevent the truth from coming out.
 
Did Dems give a F....k about the truth when Kavanagh was being accused?

We absolutely did. Just as we want the truth in regard to Biden, which is why we are taking the time to seriously analyze Reade's accusations and all of the available facts in exactly the same way we did Ford's accusations.

Or what about the Russian hoax

What is that? Are you referring to the extensively corroborated fact that Russia waged a massive information war to clandestinely influence our elections for the sole purpose of putting Trump in the WH and that Trump knew this was the case, committed treason by publicly and privately subourning it and then took extraordinary successful steps to obstruct the investigation, for which he was impeached and for which the bipartisan findings have repeatedly been in support of Mueller's conclusion, that Trump could not be exonerated?

Are you seriously so stupid as to not comprehend the fact that a Republican controlled Senate agreeing with the charges against Trump, they just did not care is in no way the same thing as Trump having being expunged of any wrongdoing?

What a miserable life you must lead having just one eye!

Aw, how cute. Irony. It suits you.
 
Well, caring about the truth might be why the Dems wanted full investigations. Wanting to conceal the truth may be (hint: definitely is) the reason that the GOP did it's best to obstruct any and all investigations and to prevent the truth from coming out.

We have the man himself showing a calendar that detailed the exact party in question, naming the location for posterity, and the neocons here STILL claim that it never happened.

The truth doesn't matter to such people. I mean Fuck, it took me 5 pages to get Angelo to resolve to reject Trump and only under the condition that he literally fulfilled biblical prophecy of the antichrist. But it literally took me 5 pages of a thread to get that much. Imagine, he was having a hard time commiting to rejecting the biblical Antichrist. And you think you can get them to commit to this easier-to-evade condemnation of evil?

I mean shit, I still don't actually believe they would reject Trump EVEN IF he did the exact same thing Angelo committed to rejecting him over.
 
But feminism has a core of bad ideas and tactics that are prominent enough that I think the whole thing can be safely scuttled.
Yes, that core belief that women should receive equal opportunities and fair treatment, and that our sex shouldn't be used to discriminate. And that tactic that women should speak up and be heard and not dismissed out of hand simply because we're women. Definitely a good reason to just scuttle the entire thing.

Women ought to know better than to speak up. Men know what their place should be and women should be content with whatever their men decide for them...
 
Dinner organizer says Biden was not at 2008 event where he was accused of sexual harassment

A past organizer for Delaware’s First State Gridiron Dinner now says Joe Biden did not attend the event in 2008, after a woman recently claimed the former vice president and senator sexually harassed her there, Fox News has learned.

On Friday, the online news outlet Law&Crime first reported that Eva Murry, who is now 26 and is related to a former GOP Senate candidate, alleged Biden made a lewd comment to her at Delaware's annual Gridiron Dinner that year -- when she was 14.

However, an official with Biden's Democratic presidential campaign told Fox News the allegations are "absolutely false."

Further, J. Brian Murphy, the former vice president of the dinner in question, said in a statement over the weekend that he reviewed the records and can “conclusively say” Biden “was not at the dinner,” which took place on Saturday, May 3, 2008.

“The year 2008 is particularly noteworthy because it is the only year where the Senator agreed to appear in a video, which was a spoof of Meet the Press. It was taped earlier that week. It was our hope the Senator would attend the dinner to see the video, but he sent regrets. Had he been there, myself as well as others would have known and in fact, I would have acknowledged him from the stage,” he said, in the statement obtained by Fox News. “Senator Biden was not at the Gridiron Dinner in May of 2008.”
 
Dinner organizer says Biden was not at 2008 event where he was accused of sexual harassment

A past organizer for Delaware’s First State Gridiron Dinner now says Joe Biden did not attend the event in 2008, after a woman recently claimed the former vice president and senator sexually harassed her there, Fox News has learned.

On Friday, the online news outlet Law&Crime first reported that Eva Murry, who is now 26 and is related to a former GOP Senate candidate, alleged Biden made a lewd comment to her at Delaware's annual Gridiron Dinner that year -- when she was 14.

However, an official with Biden's Democratic presidential campaign told Fox News the allegations are "absolutely false."

Further, J. Brian Murphy, the former vice president of the dinner in question, said in a statement over the weekend that he reviewed the records and can “conclusively say” Biden “was not at the dinner,” which took place on Saturday, May 3, 2008.

“The year 2008 is particularly noteworthy because it is the only year where the Senator agreed to appear in a video, which was a spoof of Meet the Press. It was taped earlier that week. It was our hope the Senator would attend the dinner to see the video, but he sent regrets. Had he been there, myself as well as others would have known and in fact, I would have acknowledged him from the stage,” he said, in the statement obtained by Fox News. “Senator Biden was not at the Gridiron Dinner in May of 2008.”

Another swing and a miss by the TCF.
 
Okay, so you don't want to tell me.

As I explicitly said above, I want you to figured it out for yourself.

If you truly are "trying to understand it," then you need to back way the fuck up, drop your preconceived notions about "feminism" and what constitutes assault vs simple unwanted attention, and perhaps most importantly listen to women (that's gonna be a hard row to hoe for you) who have been through this sort of thing.

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I knew this exchange with Metaphor reminded me of something and then I realized. It's this, from Chapter 6 of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass (emphasis mine):
http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/resources/chapters-script/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-6/


`It’s a stupid name enough!’ Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. `What does it mean?’

`must a name mean something?’ Alice asked doubtfully.

`Of course it must,’ Humpty Dumpty said with a sort laugh: `my name means the shape I am — and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like your, you might be any shape, almost.’

`Why do you sit out here all alone?’ said Alice, not wishing to begin an argument.

`Why, because there’s nobody with me!’ cried Humpty Dumpty. `Did you think I didn’t know the answer to that? Ask another.’

`Don’t you think you’d be safer down on the ground?’ Alice went on, not with any idea of making another riddle, but simply in her good-natured anxiety for the queer creature. `That wall is so very narrow!’

`What tremendously easy riddles you ask!’ Humpty Dumpty growled out. `Of course I don’t think so! Why, if ever I did fall off – – which there’s no chance of — but if I did — ‘ Here he pursed his lips and looked so solemn and grand that Alice could hardly help laughing. `If I did fall,’ he went on, `The King has promised me — ah, you may turn pale, if you like! You didn’t think I was going to say that, did you? The King has promised me — with his very own mouth — to — to — ‘

`To send all his horses and all his men,’ Alice interrupted, rather unwisely.

`Now I declare that’s too bad!’ Humpty Dumpty cried, breaking into a sudden passion. `You’ve been listening at doors — and behind trees — and sown chimneys — or you couldn’t have known it!’

`I haven’t, indeed!’ Alice said very gently. `It’s in a book.’

`Ah, well! They may write such things in a book,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a calmer tone. `That’s what you call a History of England, that is. Now, take a good look at me! I’m one that has spoken to a King, I am: mayhap you’ll never see such another: and to show you I’m not proud, you may shake hands with me!’ And he grinned almost from ear to ear, as he leant forwards (and as nearly as possible fell of the wall in doing so) and offered Alice his hand. She watched him a little anxiously as she took it. `If he smiled much more, the ends of his mouth might meet behind,’ she thought: `and then I don’t know what would happen to his head! I’m afraid it would come off!’

`Yes, all his horses and all his men,’ Humpty Dumpty went on. `They’d pick me up again in a minute, they would! However, this conversation is going on a little too fast: let’s go back to the last remark but one.’

`I’m afraid I can’t quite remember it,’ Alice said very politely.

`In that case we start fresh,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `and it’s my turn to choose a subject — ‘ (`He talks about it just as if it was a game!’ thought Alice.) `So here’s a question for you. How old did you say you were?’

Alice made a short calculation, and said `Seven years and six months.’

`Wrong!’ Humpty Dumpty exclaimed triumphantly. `You never said a word like it!’

`I though you meant “How old are you?”‘ Alice explained.

`If I’d meant that, I’d have said it,’ said Humpty Dumpty.

Alice didn’t want to begin another argument, so she said nothing.

`Seven years and six months!’ Humpty Dumpty repeated thoughtfully. `An uncomfortable sort of age. Now if you’d asked my advice, I’d have said “Leave off at seven” — but it’s too late now.’

`I never ask advice about growing,’ Alice said Indignantly.

`Too proud?’ the other inquired.

Alice felt even more indignant at this suggestion. `I mean,’ she said, `that one can’t help growing older.’

`One can’t, perhaps,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `but two can. With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven.’

`What a beautiful belt you’ve got on!’ Alice suddenly remarked.

(They had had quite enough of the subject of age, she thought: and if they really were to take turns in choosing subjects, it was her turn now.) `At least,’ she corrected herself on second thoughts, `a beautiful cravat, I should have said — no, a belt, I mean — I beg your pardon!’ she added in dismay, for Humpty Dumpty looked thoroughly offended, and she began to wish she hadn’t chosen that subject. `If I only knew,’ the thought to herself, ‘which was neck and which was waist!’

Evidently Humpty Dumpty was very angry, though he said nothing for a minute or two. When he did speak again, it was in a deep growl.

`It is a — most — provoking — thing,’ he said at last, `when a person doesn’t know a cravat from a belt!’

`I know it’s very ignorant of me,’ Alice said, in so humble a tone that Humpty Dumpty relented.

`It’s a cravat, child, and a beautiful one, as you say. It’s a present from the White King and Queen. There now!’

`Is it really?’ said Alice, quite pleased to find that she had chosen a good subject, after all.

`They gave it me,’ Humpty Dumpty continued thoughtfully, as he crossed one knee over the other and clasped his hands round it, `they gave it me — for an un-birthday present.’

`I beg your pardon?’ Alice said with a puzzled air.

`I’m not offended,’ said Humpty Dumpty.

`I mean, what is and un-birthday present?’

`A present given when it isn’t your birthday, of course.’

Alice considered a little. `I like birthday presents best,’ she said at last.

`You don’t know what you’re talking about!’ cried Humpty Dumpty. `How many days are there in a year?’

`Three hundred and sixty-five,’ said Alice.

`And how many birthdays have you?’

`One.’

`And if you take one from three hundred and sixty-five, what remains?’

`Three hundred and sixty-four, of course.’

Humpty Dumpty looked doubtful. `I’d rather see that done on paper,’ he said.

Alice couldn’t help smiling as she took out her memorandum- book, and worked the sum for him:

365
1
___
364
___

Humpty Dumpty took the book, and looked at it carefully. `That seems to be done right — ‘ he began.

`You’re holding it upside down!’ Alice interrupted.

`To be sure I was!’ Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven’t time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents — ‘

`Certainly,’ said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’


`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs, they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’

`Would you tell me, please,’ said Alice `what that means?`

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’
 
We have the man himself showing a calendar that detailed the exact party in question, naming the location for posterity, and the neocons here STILL claim that it never happened.
Who is claiming that the PARTIES never happened? Existence of high school parties is NOT EVIDENCE that any rapes happened as well.

I mean shit, I still don't actually believe they would reject Trump EVEN IF he did the exact same thing Angelo committed to rejecting him over.
Can I reject Trump without also being obligated to say that his SCOTUS nominee should be denied the position because somebody accused him of a 30 year old crime and has provided no evidence of said crime?
 
Can I reject Trump without also being obligated to say that his SCOTUS nominee should be denied the position because somebody accused him of a 30 year old crime and has provided no evidence of said crime?

Ford provided abundant and consistent corroborating evidence of the crime, having told multiple people--including her own husband--the exact same story over the years that she testified to before Congress, unlike Reade whose versions of events changed considerably over the years, a fact that is ironically corroborated by the very same people that were supposed to affirm her sexual abuse accusation, but do not in fact do so. Her own brother AND deceased mother, for two primary examples, did not in fact corroborate her sexual abuse accusation. At best, they corroborate Reade claimed she had been inappropriately touched on the neck and shoulders and that, only in regard to her brother, texting the reporter "days after the interview" the part about "hands under clothes," which is unclear and non-corroborative of abuse.

Worse is she stated that she remembered her mother specifically mentioning to Larry King that she had been sexually assaulted and fired as a result. It was so vivid in her memory, in fact, she even noted that what her mother was saying on the air with Larry King about her being sexually assaulted "mortified" her. A strong word to be sure, but when the actual phone call was discovered, her (alleged) mother said nothing of the sort.

Reade said she filed an official complaint after she was fired as a result of the sexual assault, only to then backtrack on that to say she never included the sexual assault allegation in case anyone finds the complaint, because she "chickened out" on including that in the report. Not that she chickened out on filing a report; just on the sexual abuse part. And in the same sentence she calls it a "complaint" and then an "intake form":

"I filed a complaint re sexual harassment and retaliation but I am not sure what explicit words on that intake form until we all see it again," Reade told NBC News in a text message Saturday.

Reade has said the complaint, if it's found, wouldn't include the sexual assault allegation she came forward with in March. She told the The Associated Press in an interview Friday: "The main word I used — and I know I didn't use 'sexual harassment' — I used 'uncomfortable.' And I remember 'retaliation.'"

Biden has insisted that no record exists, but nonetheless he sent a letter Friday asking the secretary of the Senate to "take or direct whatever steps are necessary" to determine where any such personnel record would exist and to release to the public any documents it finds related to any allegation Reade might have made.

She has stated that she was fired--but not because she reported a sexual assault; because she reported being touched on the neck and shoulders, which is the same thing she told her brother and at least two other people by my count, not including her mother--while at the same time writing elsewhere that she resigned/left of her own volition and/or was told by the people she allegedly reported to that she needed to find another job (not necessarily that they fired her).
 
We have the man himself showing a calendar that detailed the exact party in question, naming the location for posterity, and the neocons here STILL claim that it never happened.
Who is claiming that the PARTIES never happened? Existence of high school parties is NOT EVIDENCE that any rapes happened as well.

I mean shit, I still don't actually believe they would reject Trump EVEN IF he did the exact same thing Angelo committed to rejecting him over.
Can I reject Trump without also being obligated to say that his SCOTUS nominee should be denied the position because somebody accused him of a 30 year old crime and has provided no evidence of said crime?

The thing is, Ford’s complaint was not the only or the worst allegation against Kavanaugh. There were other women who were not allowed to give testimony.
 

No she didn't.
Jacob Hornberger said:
Suppose that John has parked his car in the street and the police walk over to inspect it. They find a huge dent in the front bumper with paint on it that matches the color of Mary’s car. That dent and paint would constitute “corroborative evidence” to support Mary’s accusation, even though it doesn’t consist of eyewitness testimony.
That would be physical evidence, which CBF doesn't have either.
Suppose that instead of a dent, all Mary had that she told Sue that John hit her. That would not be corroborating evidence that John hit her.

of the crime, having told multiple people--including her own husband--the exact same story over the years that she testified to before Congress,
That's not corroborating evidence, no matter how much that shyster wants to pretend it is.
 
The thing is, Ford’s complaint was not the only or the worst allegation against Kavanaugh. There were other women who were not allowed to give testimony.

I think she is the only one who alleged an actual crime. Certainly the only one who claimed anything approaching rape, so hers was certainly the worst allegation. And one of the accusers could not even remember whom she remembered behaving badly at a party at first.
 
The thing is, Ford’s complaint was not the only or the worst allegation against Kavanaugh. There were other women who were not allowed to give testimony.

I think she is the only one who alleged an actual crime. Certainly the only one who claimed anything approaching rape, so hers was certainly the worst allegation. And one of the accusers could not even remember whom she remembered behaving badly at a party at first.

No: someone else talked about how Kavanaugh and his buddies would spike girls drinks with qualuuds and lure them into rooms where they were gang raped. Definitely a crime.
 
No: someone else talked about how Kavanaugh and his buddies would spike girls drinks with qualuuds and lure them into rooms where they were gang raped. Definitely a crime.

Who is this "someone else"? Do you have a link to this?
 
Back
Top Bottom