Brett Kavanaugh’s Mother Presided Over Foreclosure Hearing Involving Accuser’s Parents

[yuna628 9,530]

I want to clear up something, because NB's link in this thread, is causing assumptions based upon it and is very misleading.

 

While it is true Kavanaugh's mom was a judge and she did have a role in the case regarding Ford's parents, that role was very small. Furthermore, she actually ruled positively in her parent's favor. Inghram deleted her tweet, and did not make any attempt to correct her assumptions on the matter, and this article merely reports what she had tweeted was factual instead of looking at the actual case.

 

Please take time to read this article for facts on this case. There is no 'there, there'. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-brett-kavanaughs-mother-didnt-foreclose-on-his-accusers-parents

Edited September 18, 2018 by yuna628

[Póg mo 1,749]

9 hours ago, Satisfied said:

 

Sure sexual abuse is so easy for women or men to report. My brother-in-law used to boast about raping girls in highschool. He went on to join the marines, and never had to face any consequences for his actions. My sister-in-law thinks my wife should let bygones be bygones, and her don't want to talk about what happened to my wife or any of what went on.

[yuna628 9,530]

11 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Sure sexual abuse is so easy for women or men to report. My brother-in-law used to boast about raping girls in highschool. He went on to join the marines, and never had to face any consequences for his actions. My sister-in-law thinks my wife should let bygones be bygones, and her don't want to talk about what happened to my wife or any of what went on.

I sometimes do not know how people who think it is so easy can look at their wives/daughters/mothers/sisters with any shred of empathy. Until it happens to them they would never understand. Victims of sexual abuse often remain silent for years suffering in silence because they know what will happen when they speak up.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Sure sexual abuse is so easy for women or men to report. My brother-in-law used to boast about raping girls in highschool. He went on to join the marines, and never had to face any consequences for his actions. My sister-in-law thinks my wife should let bygones be bygones, and her don't want to talk about what happened to my wife or any of what went on.

I'm confused by all the in-laws references you're making here?  Did your brother-in-law do something to your wife?

 

No, it may not be easy to report.  But a trend we have been seeing lately is decades later, and only when running for office.  If it didn't matter 10 or 20 years ago, why now?  If there's not enough evidence to prosecute, it just turns into a name-smear thing.  Which is pretty ugly.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I sometimes do not know how people who think it is so easy can look at their wives/daughters/mothers/sisters with any shred of empathy. Until it happens to them they would never understand. Victims of sexual abuse often remain silent for years suffering in silence because they know what will happen when they speak up.

This is true.  And a tragedy.  But what I have been seeing the past few years is more of a revenge thing than a justice thing.  Unless there's a case for rape, shouldn't there be a statute of limitations?

 

I mean, if a boy from your HS comes out when you are running for office and claims you sexually harassed him 30 years ago... is that just?

[Boiler 43,452]

4 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

This is true.  And a tragedy.  But what I have been seeing the past few years is more of a revenge thing than a justice thing.  Unless there's a case for rape, shouldn't there be a statute of limitations?

 

I mean, if a boy from your HS comes out when you are running for office and claims you sexually harassed him 30 years ago... is that just?

She made the allegations, she needs to prove them, so for nothing.

[yuna628 9,530]

1 minute ago, Satisfied said:

This is true.  And a tragedy.  But what I have been seeing the past few years is more of a revenge thing than a justice thing.  Unless there's a case for rape, shouldn't there be a statute of limitations?

 

I mean, if a boy from your HS comes out when you are running for office and claims you sexually harassed him 30 years ago... is that just?

 

It's a moral thing to me: does a person who sexually assaults someone deserve to hold a public office of authority, including the highest court of the land? To me, no they do not. And while it is unfortunate when victims remain silent (think of how many powerful men have obtained office and have been revealed as abusers later within the church or government) perhaps I should say that a victim has some of the highest moral duty and even worse conflict of conscience to come forward and let the chips fall as they may. Of course that will lead people to feel skeptical, because they themselves have not been in that situation, and it feels 'convenient'. To me I do not ever feel there should be limitations on abuse or rape. It is something that will affect the whole person for the rest of their lives, akin to nearly murder. It murders a person's soul, being, and in many cases damages them beyond repair. The victim often wishes they were dead.

 

I cannot say what Kavanaugh has or hasn't done. We weren't there. There is a lot of implications that he did not have as 'squeaky clean' an upbringing as he says, and that he and his buddies did get up to behavior that we would not want displayed in our sons or directed towards our daughters. If this were merely dirty politics aimed to discredit, I would ask, why did Gorsuch seem to not be 'attacked' in this way. I watched Gorsuch's hearing. I found him to be solid, thoughtful, moral - even if I would disagree with his ideas. I did not get that feeling with Kavanaugh, he is evasive, squirrelly, and I do not feel confident in the competency of his philosophies. Because this is partisan politics, even if a republican voting felt the same way, they would be forced to just vote for him anyway - regardless of if he was sound or not just because of desperation... which is not what a thoughtful process should be. SCOTUS should not be a blank check to the person a 'power group' picks because of how they might vote on a case in the future. It belongs to principled.. good people. I think instead of putting the American people through this 'show', he should withdraw. It's the honorable thing to do, regardless of if true or not. There's plenty of other people that are more qualified, will have less questions to their history, and will offer the same 'voting' result.

 

So is it just? It is if the allegation is true. There is no way we can prove it, as we weren't there. But that's what testimony is for. Imagine for a moment if it is true. Should she have stayed silent? There is as far as I'm aware one other person who may have an accusation, that is also being sat on. She did supposedly pass a lie detector test, for whatever that is worth. Would Kavanaugh submit to the same?

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

6 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

 

It's a moral thing to me: does a person who sexually assaults someone deserve to hold a public office of authority, including the highest court of the land? To me, no they do not. And while it is unfortunate when victims remain silent (think of how many powerful men have obtained office and have been revealed as abusers later within the church or government) perhaps I should say that a victim has some of the highest moral duty and even worse conflict of conscience to come forward and let the chips fall as they may. Of course that will lead people to feel skeptical, because they themselves have not been in that situation, and it feels 'convenient'. To me I do not ever feel there should be limitations on abuse or rape. It is something that will affect the whole person for the rest of their lives, akin to nearly murder. It murders a person's soul, being, and in many cases damages them beyond repair. The victim often wishes they were dead.

 

I cannot say what Kavanaugh has or hasn't done. We weren't there. There is a lot of implications that he did not have as 'squeaky clean' an upbringing as he says, and that he and his buddies did get up to behavior that we would not want displayed in our sons or directed towards our daughters. If this were merely dirty politics aimed to discredit, I would ask, why did Gorsuch seem to not be 'attacked' in this way. I watched Gorsuch's hearing. I found him to be solid, thoughtful, moral - even if I would disagree with his ideas. I did not get that feeling with Kavanaugh, he is evasive, squirrelly, and I do not feel confident in the competency of his philosophies. Because this is partisan politics, even if a republican voting felt the same way, they would be forced to just vote for him anyway - regardless of if he was sound or not just because of desperation... which is not what a thoughtful process should be. SCOTUS should not be a blank check to the person a 'power group' picks because of how they might vote on a case in the future. It belongs to principled.. good people. I think instead of putting the American people through this 'show', he should withdraw. It's the honorable thing to do, regardless of if true or not. There's plenty of other people that are more qualified, will have less questions to their history, and will offer the same 'voting' result.

 

So is it just? It is if the allegation is true. There is no way we can prove it, as we weren't there. But that's what testimony is for. Imagine for a moment if it is true. Should she have stayed silent? There is as far as I'm aware one other person who may have an accusation, that is also being sat on. She did supposedly pass a lie detector test, for whatever that is worth. Would Kavanaugh submit to the same?

If he is guilty, he should not be appointed to the SC, if not past the statute of limitations he should be prosecuted.

 

If it cannot be proven, he should be allowed to serve on the SC unless something else egregious is proven.

 

Hearsay and innuendo should not determine competence to do a job

[TBoneTX 43,061]

35 minutes ago, Boiler said:

She made the allegations, she needs to prove them, so for nothing.

In theory, exactly right.

In reality, the allegations alone are enough to disqualify (and ruin him permanently), chiefly with the assistance of the media.

[Póg mo 1,749]

38 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

I'm confused by all the in-laws references you're making here?  Did your brother-in-law do something to your wife?

Why yes, abused from when she was about twelve, with a brief intermission when she was was fourteen or so, when she finally got up the nerve to tell her teacher. She was placed in foster for a couple of weeks, until her dad was able to convince a judge to let her go home. The abuse continued thereafter. 

 

Any thoughts on how I might work the abuse into a conversation with my brother-in-law wife? 'Hey Jenny', not her real name,  has your husband ever raped you or either of your two children?'

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

No, it may not be easy to report.  But a trend we have been seeing lately is decades later, and only when running for office.  If it didn't matter 10 or 20 years ago, why now?  If there's not enough evidence to prosecute, it just turns into a name-smear thing.  Which is pretty ugly.

Maybe she is still angry? Sexual abuse can leave scars that last a lifetime, and just because everyone else can move on, doesn't mean that the victim can.

Knowing that the guy who sexually assaulted her, all those years ago is likely going to a supreme Court Justice, might have pushed her over the edge. 

 

Women are often ignored or accused of having alterior motives, when they come forward to make a complaint, so it is not surprising that this women didnt come want to complain for such a long time.

 

 

[TBoneTX 43,061]

23 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

SCOTUS should not be a blank check to the person a 'power group' picks because of how they might vote on a case in the future. It belongs to principled.. good people.

The Senate gets to decide, and their role is (supposed to be) to determine the nominee's fitness to serve as a jurist.  This excludes political and character considerations, unless these are specifically mentioned as part of the "fitness" criterion.

 

No one must forget that this treatment would have been given to any nominee proposed by the current President.  This is compounded by the liberals'/Democrats' presumption that a liberal or "swing" vacancy should be filled by someone of the same philosophy (partially explaining their comparative quiescence toward Gorsuch, who was filling the constitutionalist Scalia vacancy).  Remember also that, since the Reagan administration, the liberals/Democrats have seen the courts as the way to achieve their goals:  get activists appointed and have them usurp the law-making role of the Legislative branch.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Why yes, abused from when she was about twelve, with a brief intermission when she was was fourteen or so, when she finally got up the nerve to tell her teacher. She was placed in foster for a couple of weeks, until her dad was able to convince a judge to let her go home. The abuse continued thereafter. 

 

Any thoughts on how I might work the abuse into a conversation with my brother-in-law wife? 'Hey Jenny', not her real name,  has your husband ever raped you or either of your two children?'

 

 

 

Maybe she is still angry? Sexual abuse can leave scars that last a lifetime, and just because everyone else can move on, doesn't mean that the victim can.

Knowing that the guy who sexually assaulted her, all those years ago is likely going to a supreme Court Justice, might have pushed her over the edge. 

 

Women are often ignored or accused of having alterior motives, when they come forward to make a complaint, so it is not surprising that this women didnt come want to complain for such a long time.

 

 

As to the first part, your family... wow, that is a hot mess.  I guess I would ask what the purpose is of bringing it up now?  Is your wife willing to testify against her brother and have him prosecuted?  Is she just seeking an apology, and hopefully closure?  Does she want to ruin his life like he ruined hers?  Does she want to prevent his daughter(s) from being abused by an alleged rapist (only saying alleged cuz I don’t know; not doubting you nor your wife here at all; I’m sure she wouldn’t be making this sort of thing up).

 

The problem with bringing it up is it WILL divide the family.  Who will fall on which side?  Completely unknown.  It may well destroy her brother, or he may be so calloused that it does nothing to change him.  Or... has he already changed?  Has he risen above it, and will never do it again?  Or.... is he still a predator, has he done it to his wife, or his children, or anyone else’s children?  (I am sure you have asked these questions yourself between you and your wife.  Tough ones.)

 

On the flip side of the coin, NOT bringing it up could allow it to happen again, if the guy is still as sick inside today as he was back when he abused your wife.  How will you or your wife feel in a year or two when you find out he raped a friend’s daughter?  Knowing what you knew, and keeping silent about it, one could argue you played a part in it happening.

A very tough situation to be in, and I do not envy you one bit.  My experience is limited; my first wife was abused as a teenager by her step father.  When confronted about it, her mom blamed the daughter.  The step father promised to stop (several times), but the abuse continued until I met her when she was 17.  He finally died thankfully, but my ex wife (also now dead) never got over it.  For most, the scars are forever, and create a myriad of internal and external responses.

 

Stories like yours and knowing what my ex wife had to live thru are why I condone the death penalty (or worse) for rapists and pedophiles.  Good luck with your situation, whatever you decide.  Since you seem to be asking for an opinion, and I tend to have them, if it were me, I would have a sit-down with you, your wife, her brother, and his wife, and talk about what happened.  Worst case scenario, the 4 of you part ways.  Or you and your wife stick, but her brother’s wife splits.  Or those two stick together and shun you and your wife. Best case, you discuss it like adults, he is man enough to admit his wrong, and he apologizes to your wife and they begin healing.  Regardless of how it plays out, his wife will at least know, and even if she doesn’t want to acknowledge it, may have her eyes opened and be able to head it off in the future should it ever occur again.

Very sorry that your wife has to deal with this.  No one should.  There’s just no excuse for it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

This should get interesting as all get-out next week. Might have to find a friend with a TV to watch...

 

 

"The Republican leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Monday he would convene remarkable new public hearings in a week's time after sexual assault allegations emerged against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Both Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused him of physical and sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford, will testify before the panel, setting up a blockbuster event that could decide Kavanaugh's fate."

 

 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/brett-kavanaugh-testimony/

[yuna628 9,530]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

The Senate gets to decide, and their role is (supposed to be) to determine the nominee's fitness to serve as a jurist.  This excludes political and character considerations, unless these are specifically mentioned as part of the "fitness" criterion.

 

No one must forget that this treatment would have been given to any nominee proposed by the current President.  This is compounded by the liberals'/Democrats' presumption that a liberal or "swing" vacancy should be filled by someone of the same philosophy (partially explaining their comparative quiescence toward Gorsuch, who was filling the constitutionalist Scalia vacancy).  Remember also that, since the Reagan administration, the liberals/Democrats have seen the courts as the way to achieve their goals:  get activists appointed and have them usurp the law-making role of the Legislative branch.

I think that's an assumption though. Believe me, in a world of dirty politics if they wanted to find something bad on Gorsuch they could have. I recall some articles about his frat boy years, but simply put, nothing credible enough was brought up and no one accused him of rape. He answered all questions fairly well, and did not seem evasive or odd. Frankly, I have to say that Conservatives see the court much the same way Democrats do. I have been deep into the religious conservative world enough to know that so many dream of a day when activist judges on 'their side' shape things how they see their worldview. There is no virtual difference, just about what viewpoint the judge should have in doing it. Conservative think tanks that keep judge-approved lists and recommendations are not shy about it whatsoever.

 

For what it's worth, I'm even more convinced today that something is fishy about Kavanaugh. First it was an outright denial, then it was perhaps she mixed him up with someone else, and now just today his spokesperson says it's just ''boorish rough horseplay''. It's an odd thing to say, at least if Kavanaugh wants to tread carefully; Maryland has no statute of limitations on cases like this.

 

It would seriously be to the Republican's advantage if they dump him quickly, and find someone just as qualified. Maybe even a woman, that would surely box Democrats into a spot they couldn't much argue with. The hearing if it goes forward (I really hope he will resign before that point) will be a fiasco, and it will add fuel to an already raging fire. Damage control is needed.

[Boiler 43,452]

The main problem here is that Politically motivated allegation like these bring real victims issues into doubt.