The Kavanaugh Fallout


No, I think those are all right, but except for the bruises all the rest could be put on Kavanaugh. I think Farrow’s reporting on these issues has been pretty spot on, and he seems to be going all in on Kavanaugh which won’t change anybody’s mind… but whatever.

(Edit: Sorry that this is a reply to you, bojack, I can’t figure out how to delete it now)


No they can’t. There are no people to say, “oh yeah so and so confided in me at the time”, there is no admission there was sex, that there was role play, only regarding wheter it was consensual or not.

There is no comparison.


Because you don’t want there to be.


Not because I don’t want there to be.

Kavanaugh categorically denies the events ever took place, Schneiderman doesn’t.

Kavanaugh accusers have no corroborating evidence, no photo’s , no witnesses, no confidants they told. Schneiderman accusers have all of the above, plus he admits it.

But whatever, if you think these two cases are the same, you do you.


This is why I don’t like the #metoo movement. Why should victims suffer in silence instead of standing up for themselves?
In one particular case, I had a boss who put his hand on my knee and told me “The sky’s the limit if you’ll just cooperate” of course in a closed door performance review meeting in his office. I had heard the office talk about him. The anger that I felt was scary and I was truly afraid of being arrested for what I wanted to do. Instead, I looked at his family photo with 8 kids no less and said “Your family must be very proud of you.”, and he took his hand off my knee and never approached me again. I wanted to quit but my co-workers persuaded me not to and it wasn’t long before he crossed the line with another co-worker and showed up on her doorstep and her husband opened the door. Then the company started asking the women to share their stories and we gladly did. My manager asked me why I didn’t come to me. He was distraught that this had happened in his office. The creepy creep was walked out of there with his belongings in a box. You might ask why I didn’t report him? I was in a closed office and what he said could be interpreted many ways. I was new and going to HR was not an option because I didn’t have proof. If I had proof, I would have gone after him for blood.
So might ask why I won’t go after him now in true #metoo style? I’d rather deal with it at the moment than come back and report something that happened in the summer of 1996 because it would only hurt other people without any result. So my answer is to make sure your mothers, sisters, and daughters know they tell you with anything so that they are not alone when things like this happen. Out of working since 1988, I can recall two times where I had this kind of trouble. I’m an engineer so my colleagues are usually men. Many of my managers (also men) have told me that if I run into any trouble that their door is always open.


It still doesn’t mesh with the overarching narrative of the folks who like to cry “Due Process!” and “Guilty Until Proven Innocent!” He hasn’t been arrested, tried or sued for anything. Also couple of your points are technically wrong - particularly him admitting it - but as I think Schneiderman did what he’s accused of, it doesn’t really matter.


I actually had a couple of women come to me to complain about one of my subordinates a while back, I didn’t doubt their claim he was a creep for a second and told them I was already pushing for his dismissal, just needed to get the VP on board as he had taken him under his wing for whatever reason. He was gone less than a week later. No woman should have to tolerate such behavior in the work place, I realize it actually happens a lot more than women let on and it’s a legitimate problem.


Which is what #metoo was. Hollywood may have taken over, for better or worse (R.I.P. Harvey Weinstein, you piece of shit) but if you’re in any way connected to social media, women didn’t outright name names throughout the movement. It was just an eye opening experience to see how wide spread sexual harassment, assault and rape were. More women that I would think possible were victims. And men.


@Mick Your story is much more common that what we are hearing in the media. It takes time to collect evidence to support an accusation or probably more commonly, they are fired for some other reason because that is how HR avoids a lawsuit. Most of these creeps are careful about how they cross the line, but eventually they do.


I disagree here. His temperament is fine. However, with Dems holding nothing back in going after his personal life (with no corroborating evidence to boot), he had to show to Trump officials that he was willing to go for the jugular. Remember that the style of Trump is essentially the style of his legal mentor in the 70s and early 80s, Roy Cohn. Based on that reality, Kavanaugh came out swinging and it saved his nomination.

Moreover, if you look at the swing vote testimonies and interviews, people such as Senator Collins said it was exactly because of Kavanaugh`s emotional anger, that they reconsidered their vote after the testimony of Ford. The outrage of sexual McCarthyism helped to change her mind. Had he remained 100 percent cool under pressure (like he does on the bench), it would not have resonated with the fair-minded senators/nation. He knew his audience and should be commended for having that radar.

Many of us have daughters and truly believe that such behaviour, if it can be proved, should be punished. But in this case, where even her best friends could not corroborate, where she forgot key dates, facts, etc., where the Dems leaked, and where Kavanaugh did not get a fair shake from the very start, it was a charade. Lock away Cosby and Weinstein, but if you go after people solely on ideology and without evidence to boot, do not be surprised when they hit back hard.


These are powerful stories, and I fully support you and your colleagues reporting this man. It is common sense that you do not shit where you eat. Based on this obvious fact, at-work relations or harassment should be off limits or in the former handled very, very carefully (known a few people that married coworkers). Outside of work though, it is more shades of grey. My critique of some parts of MeToo is similar to French actress Catherine Deneuve. I think so much of it reeks of North American puritanism and special interests that are more interested in conflict than diversity, fairplay and cooperation. They are ignoring the together we are better mantra. It is why I agree with the speech of Senator Collins 100 percent. One of the best speeches I have ever heard.

Here is what Deneuve said a while back:
Deneuve made headlines in January when she joined 99 other women in signing their names to a letter in Le Monde that criticized the Me Too movement and its French counterpart, Balance Ton Porc, claiming that the campaigns infantilize women and contribute to a climate of sexual puritanism and totalitarian thinking. A backlash ensued, and Deneuve responded with a letter of her own, in another French daily newspaper, Libération , stating that while she stood by the original statement, she did not condone sexual abuse or misconduct. “I salute all female victims of odious acts who may have felt aggrieved by the letter in Le Monde . It is to them and them alone that I apologize.”

“I’ve always been on the side of women,” Deneuve tells me. That said, she believes that there’s a blurred line between power and seduction: “Desire is at the heart of many creative professions, like film, music, and fashion photography. The challenge is to know the limit and to understand the difference between flirting and going too far.” As she sees it, the best way forward is to “require all companies to have a code of conduct. And I think it’s time to start in schools. Boys try to seduce girls, and sometimes they are too forceful, so it’s very much a question of education.”


so much love <3


I went over to that account to see for myself, I had heard she already took the tweet down.

So, I’m thinking “how can that be construed as sarcasm” and took a look at the thread. (first question people asked)

That actually makes sense. It’s the type of snark i would expect from a left leaning comedy writer. It could be malicious, but I think people are mostly good people, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.


Kavanaugh was the only option for Trump avoiding impeachment. He was going through regardless.


What does the Supreme Court have to do with impeaching President Trump?


From my outside perspective it seems there are some
major weaknesses with the supreme court makeup
Mainly that the turnover of judges is too slow.

  1. People are living too long and it’s a job for life
  2. Only having seven justices means it’s easier to push the makeup of the court one way or the other.
  3. The president gets to nominate the judges (why ?)


He probably doesn’t k ow who does the impeaching in the United States.

  1. You want the judges to outlast whoever put them in so it’s less political.
  2. It’s actually 9.
  3. Checks and balances. President nominates, Senate approves.

  1. Not sure I think this is a bug. With experience and age come wisdom.
  2. There are nine justices, not seven.
  3. It’s in the Constitution that way.

I know that changing our Constitution is a super popular idea among Europeans, but it’s stood us in very good stead since the beginning. As an American I am quite proud of it.


yeah yeah yeah, I was referring to the Kavanaugh saying a sitting president cannot be indicted. Used impeachment. My bad, thanks for the condescending catch tho! :beers: