The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush
- Thread starter Poindexter
- Start date
Forbes writer says we have finally found our next supreme court justice and it is Christine Blasey Ford.
Yeh right. She would make a better flight attendant.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/victor...our-supreme-court-justice-today/#3202d3583fc6
Yeh right. She would make a better flight attendant.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/victor...our-supreme-court-justice-today/#3202d3583fc6
What a shock.
Kavanaugh Accuser's Legal Team Makes Expected Move, Wants Open-Ended Investigation
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36478/kavanaugh-accusers-legal-team-makes-expected-move-hank-berrien
Kavanaugh Accuser's Legal Team Makes Expected Move, Wants Open-Ended Investigation
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36478/kavanaugh-accusers-legal-team-makes-expected-move-hank-berrien
The Austral
Women, like men, lie on occasion, even about sexual assault
Demonstrators protest against the appointment of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington on Thursday.
I have found myself wondering if today’s feminists, if they had been around 60 years ago, would have worn badges saying: “I Believe Carolyn Bryant.”
Carolyn Bryant, later Carolyn Donham, is the white woman who, in August 1955, accused a young man, Emmett Till, of sexually harassing her. She said Till entered the grocery store in Mississippi where she worked and touched her without her consent.
Apparently he said: “How about a date, baby?”
When she walked away, he apparently followed her, put his arm around her waist, and said: “What’s the matter, baby?”
What happened after this alleged incident is one of the darkest moments in modern American history.
Bryant told people she had been sexually harassed by Till, a black boy, then just 14 years old. He had made her feel sexually vulnerable, she said.
And these people hunted Till down and murdered him. They beat him, shot him and dumped his body in a river.
This horrific crime lives on as a terrible stain on the American conscience.
The photograph of Till’s mutilated corpse galvanised Americans — black and white — to change their society. And so the civil rights movement was born.
Of course, no modern feminist would support such a barbaric act of racist violence.
Yet presumably they would have believed Bryant’s accusations. After all, according to modern feminists, women never lie about serious issues such as sexual harassment.
As reflected in the widely shared hashtag of #IBelieveHer, today’s feminists encourage uncritical acceptance of all — literally all — accusations of unwanted sexual attention.
Indeed, just this week, American feminists have been wearing badges saying: “I Believe Christine Blasey Ford.”
Supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ford is the woman who has made accusations of sexual harassment against Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s pick to join the US Supreme Court. Ford, a professor of psychology, alleges that 36 years ago Kavanaugh, then just 17, held her down and ground against her.
Kavanaugh says this never happened.
But #MeToo activists have said they believe Ford. They always believe women. Instant belief in accusations of sexual assault has become a central feature of modern feminism.
As feminist commentator Melissa Silverstein says: “There are a few fundamental beliefs that I hold … one of them is that I believe women.”
Knee-jerk belief is a central feature of #MeToo. One of the most vocal leaders of #MeToo — actress turned activist Rose McGowan — recently instructed the media to stop using the word alleged.
“I would challenge the media to stop using the word alleged,” she said. This is the “first time in history women are being believed”, she said, and the word alleged encouraged doubt.
A feminist reporter agreed with McGowan that “the qualifier ‘alleged’ should be removed from the media parlance”.
In short, every accusation made by a woman against a man should be presumed as gospel.
This is why feminists believe everything Ford says. And by the same token, they would have believed Bryant. She claimed she had been sexually harassed. She said she had been victimised by a male.
The truth, right? I believe Bryant, yes?
Well, that would have been a moral error — a serious moral error.
For Bryant later admitted to a professor of history that her accusations had been false. Last year, she told Timothy B. Tyson, a professor at Duke University, that on the matter of Till being “sexually crude” towards her, “that part was not true”.
In short, she lied. And someone suffered, unimaginably, as a result.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in.
Of course, Kavanaugh runs no risk of enduring what the young Till endured at the hands of racist scum. But the principle — or lack of principle — that guided their belief in the accusations of sexual impropriety against Till is the same one that guides 21st-century feminism: namely, that women must be believed. Always. They never lie. They never misremember.
The extent to which instant belief has become a central feature of contemporary culture was captured in a headline at NBC News in the US at the end of last year. “Why are We Still Teaching To Kill a Mockingbird in Schools?” it said.
The piece claimed that Harper Lee’s classic — long the moral anchor of American education — was now problematic because it “complicates the modern ‘believe victims’ movement”.
Virtually everyone knows that Lee’s novel tells the story of siblings Scout and Jem and their dad, Atticus, a lawyer who defends Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman, Mayella.
But Mayella lies. She made sexual advances towards Tom, for which she was punished by her father, and so she and her father concoct a story about Tom raping her.
Atticus encourages people to disbelieve Mayella. And in the present climate of instant belief, that is bad. Really bad. Atticus, in today’s view, is a misogynist.
Letting schoolgirls read this book will fuel their “growing suspicion that people don’t believe girls who say they have been raped”, says the NBC piece. It makes us think there is “reason to doubt” rape accusers.
But there is reason to doubt — surely?
Of course, everyone who makes an accusation of sexual assault — or of any kind of crime — should be treated sympathetically and openly. We should aspire to believe them.
But we also should be sceptical.
Indeed, the civilised principle of innocent until proven guilty — which is what Lee was defending — demands scepticism.
It demands that we insist on proof before we rush to condemn an individual — whether it is Tom Robinson or Brett Kavanaugh. It doesn’t matter if it is a lowly black worker or a Supreme Court nominee: a principle is a principle, and everyone deserves the assumption of innocence.
Today’s rush to believe is bad for everyone. It is bad for men because it threatens to condemn them before they have been justly tried. It is bad for justice because it rubbishes key ideals of due process.
And it is bad for women, too. As Margaret Atwood said this year: “Women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails.”
Women are “not angels”, says Atwood.
Indeed. Women lie, just like men do. Or they forget, like men do.
Instant belief in women actually infantilises women. Worse, it is an invitation to lie. If we believe every accusation of sexual impropriety, we encourage women to use such accusations as weapons. To use them to defeat their opponents.
Is that really the world in which we want to live? I don’t. I would rather live in a world of scepticism than credulity.
I would rather live in a world in which what happened to Till — instant punishment following instant belief — can never, ever happen again.
Brendan O’Neill is the editor of online magazine Spiked. He hosts a monthly podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show.
Women, like men, lie on occasion, even about sexual assault
Demonstrators protest against the appointment of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington on Thursday.
- BRENDAN O’NEILL
- 12:00AM SEPTEMBER 29, 2018
I have found myself wondering if today’s feminists, if they had been around 60 years ago, would have worn badges saying: “I Believe Carolyn Bryant.”
Carolyn Bryant, later Carolyn Donham, is the white woman who, in August 1955, accused a young man, Emmett Till, of sexually harassing her. She said Till entered the grocery store in Mississippi where she worked and touched her without her consent.
Apparently he said: “How about a date, baby?”
When she walked away, he apparently followed her, put his arm around her waist, and said: “What’s the matter, baby?”
What happened after this alleged incident is one of the darkest moments in modern American history.
Bryant told people she had been sexually harassed by Till, a black boy, then just 14 years old. He had made her feel sexually vulnerable, she said.
And these people hunted Till down and murdered him. They beat him, shot him and dumped his body in a river.
This horrific crime lives on as a terrible stain on the American conscience.
The photograph of Till’s mutilated corpse galvanised Americans — black and white — to change their society. And so the civil rights movement was born.
Of course, no modern feminist would support such a barbaric act of racist violence.
Yet presumably they would have believed Bryant’s accusations. After all, according to modern feminists, women never lie about serious issues such as sexual harassment.
As reflected in the widely shared hashtag of #IBelieveHer, today’s feminists encourage uncritical acceptance of all — literally all — accusations of unwanted sexual attention.
Indeed, just this week, American feminists have been wearing badges saying: “I Believe Christine Blasey Ford.”
Supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ford is the woman who has made accusations of sexual harassment against Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s pick to join the US Supreme Court. Ford, a professor of psychology, alleges that 36 years ago Kavanaugh, then just 17, held her down and ground against her.
Kavanaugh says this never happened.
But #MeToo activists have said they believe Ford. They always believe women. Instant belief in accusations of sexual assault has become a central feature of modern feminism.
As feminist commentator Melissa Silverstein says: “There are a few fundamental beliefs that I hold … one of them is that I believe women.”
Knee-jerk belief is a central feature of #MeToo. One of the most vocal leaders of #MeToo — actress turned activist Rose McGowan — recently instructed the media to stop using the word alleged.
“I would challenge the media to stop using the word alleged,” she said. This is the “first time in history women are being believed”, she said, and the word alleged encouraged doubt.
A feminist reporter agreed with McGowan that “the qualifier ‘alleged’ should be removed from the media parlance”.
In short, every accusation made by a woman against a man should be presumed as gospel.
This is why feminists believe everything Ford says. And by the same token, they would have believed Bryant. She claimed she had been sexually harassed. She said she had been victimised by a male.
The truth, right? I believe Bryant, yes?
Well, that would have been a moral error — a serious moral error.
For Bryant later admitted to a professor of history that her accusations had been false. Last year, she told Timothy B. Tyson, a professor at Duke University, that on the matter of Till being “sexually crude” towards her, “that part was not true”.
In short, she lied. And someone suffered, unimaginably, as a result.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in.
Of course, Kavanaugh runs no risk of enduring what the young Till endured at the hands of racist scum. But the principle — or lack of principle — that guided their belief in the accusations of sexual impropriety against Till is the same one that guides 21st-century feminism: namely, that women must be believed. Always. They never lie. They never misremember.
The extent to which instant belief has become a central feature of contemporary culture was captured in a headline at NBC News in the US at the end of last year. “Why are We Still Teaching To Kill a Mockingbird in Schools?” it said.
The piece claimed that Harper Lee’s classic — long the moral anchor of American education — was now problematic because it “complicates the modern ‘believe victims’ movement”.
Virtually everyone knows that Lee’s novel tells the story of siblings Scout and Jem and their dad, Atticus, a lawyer who defends Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman, Mayella.
But Mayella lies. She made sexual advances towards Tom, for which she was punished by her father, and so she and her father concoct a story about Tom raping her.
Atticus encourages people to disbelieve Mayella. And in the present climate of instant belief, that is bad. Really bad. Atticus, in today’s view, is a misogynist.
Letting schoolgirls read this book will fuel their “growing suspicion that people don’t believe girls who say they have been raped”, says the NBC piece. It makes us think there is “reason to doubt” rape accusers.
But there is reason to doubt — surely?
Of course, everyone who makes an accusation of sexual assault — or of any kind of crime — should be treated sympathetically and openly. We should aspire to believe them.
But we also should be sceptical.
Indeed, the civilised principle of innocent until proven guilty — which is what Lee was defending — demands scepticism.
It demands that we insist on proof before we rush to condemn an individual — whether it is Tom Robinson or Brett Kavanaugh. It doesn’t matter if it is a lowly black worker or a Supreme Court nominee: a principle is a principle, and everyone deserves the assumption of innocence.
Today’s rush to believe is bad for everyone. It is bad for men because it threatens to condemn them before they have been justly tried. It is bad for justice because it rubbishes key ideals of due process.
And it is bad for women, too. As Margaret Atwood said this year: “Women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails.”
Women are “not angels”, says Atwood.
Indeed. Women lie, just like men do. Or they forget, like men do.
Instant belief in women actually infantilises women. Worse, it is an invitation to lie. If we believe every accusation of sexual impropriety, we encourage women to use such accusations as weapons. To use them to defeat their opponents.
Is that really the world in which we want to live? I don’t. I would rather live in a world of scepticism than credulity.
I would rather live in a world in which what happened to Till — instant punishment following instant belief — can never, ever happen again.
Brendan O’Neill is the editor of online magazine Spiked. He hosts a monthly podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show.
The Real Reason Why Democrats Want An FBI Investigation Into Brett Kavanaugh
By MATT WALSH
Jeff Flake flaked out and caved to the Democratic demand for an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. There is a reason why Democrats so desperately want this investigation, and, like everything else they say, it has nothing to do with getting to the truth.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they wouldn't have held onto these allegations until the last minute.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they wouldn't be entertaining wild stories from emotionally unbalanced women about roving high school rape gangs.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they wouldn't have announced that they believed Christine Ford before either one of them had actually testified.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they would have used the opportunity yesterday to actually ask Ford some questions, rather than taking turns giving her, and themselves, high fives.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they would have asked Kavanaugh about the incident in question rather than spending the entire hearing focused on yearbook scribblings.
Democrats are not interested in the truth at all, whatsoever. In fact, they've already said that Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court — no matter what the FBI investigation turns up. But it won't turn up anything, as they are well aware, because there is no evidence, there are no witnesses, and the accuser doesn't even know the year or place that this attack allegedly took place. They have absolutely nothing to go on. Nothing to investigate. The only thing they can do is ask the people who were allegedly involved or allegedly present. All of them have already been asked under penalty of felony and already denied that the party took place. What else can they say about a party that never occurred? There are only so many ways to say, "This didn't happen." Do Democrats want them to say it again in Greek? Do they need to draw a picture of the thing not happening? Do they need to sing it?
The investigation will accomplish nothing of substance and lead nowhere. So why are they so intent on it? Three reasons:
1) It will delay Kavanaugh's confirmation to give time for more dirt to be dug up.
2) It will delay Kavanaugh's confirmation to give time to put more pressure on squish Republicans.
3) They hope the FBI will follow irrelevant trails into unconnected but embarrassing matters, thus further destroying Kavanaugh's reputation.
And, it goes without saying, Democrats will demand another delay after this delay, and they will call the investigation unfair no matter how it's conducted or how it concludes.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36468/walsh-real-reason-why-democrats-want-fbi-matt-walsh
By MATT WALSH
Jeff Flake flaked out and caved to the Democratic demand for an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. There is a reason why Democrats so desperately want this investigation, and, like everything else they say, it has nothing to do with getting to the truth.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they wouldn't have held onto these allegations until the last minute.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they wouldn't be entertaining wild stories from emotionally unbalanced women about roving high school rape gangs.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they wouldn't have announced that they believed Christine Ford before either one of them had actually testified.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they would have used the opportunity yesterday to actually ask Ford some questions, rather than taking turns giving her, and themselves, high fives.
If Democrats were interested in the truth, they would have asked Kavanaugh about the incident in question rather than spending the entire hearing focused on yearbook scribblings.
Democrats are not interested in the truth at all, whatsoever. In fact, they've already said that Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court — no matter what the FBI investigation turns up. But it won't turn up anything, as they are well aware, because there is no evidence, there are no witnesses, and the accuser doesn't even know the year or place that this attack allegedly took place. They have absolutely nothing to go on. Nothing to investigate. The only thing they can do is ask the people who were allegedly involved or allegedly present. All of them have already been asked under penalty of felony and already denied that the party took place. What else can they say about a party that never occurred? There are only so many ways to say, "This didn't happen." Do Democrats want them to say it again in Greek? Do they need to draw a picture of the thing not happening? Do they need to sing it?
The investigation will accomplish nothing of substance and lead nowhere. So why are they so intent on it? Three reasons:
1) It will delay Kavanaugh's confirmation to give time for more dirt to be dug up.
2) It will delay Kavanaugh's confirmation to give time to put more pressure on squish Republicans.
3) They hope the FBI will follow irrelevant trails into unconnected but embarrassing matters, thus further destroying Kavanaugh's reputation.
And, it goes without saying, Democrats will demand another delay after this delay, and they will call the investigation unfair no matter how it's conducted or how it concludes.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36468/walsh-real-reason-why-democrats-want-fbi-matt-walsh
Sen. Orrin Hatch Expresses Concerns in Letter to FBI Director
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on Saturday sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, expressing concerns about the department's investigation into Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Hatch's main concern stems from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's lawyers refusing to convey the Senate Judiciary Committee's previous interview offerings, which forced Ford to testify in front of the public.
Here's a copy of the letter (emphasis mine):
The Honorable Christopher Wray
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
Dear Director Wray:
I write regarding President Donald J. Trump's recent request that the FBI conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Brett Kavanaugh's background investigation file. The President noted that this request should be limited to scope and completed in one week from yesterday.
With your leadership and professional career staff handling the matter. I have no doubt that the FBI is capable of conducting the necessary interviews well within that time frame. It is my understanding that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and those identified as attending the gathering at which the alleged assault took place have publicly agreed to cooperate with the investigation.
I am writing to request, however, that you notify the White House Counsel's Office immediately if any witness(es) or their representatives seek to delay or are uncooperative in this process. One key reason for my concern regarding possible delay comes from testimony during the hearing this past Thursday. According to Dr. Ford, she would have preferred to have been interviewed in California, away from the spectacle of a public hearing. But her lawyers apparently refused to convey to their client numerous offers by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to conduct a public or private interview in the location of her choosing. The lawyers' refusal led directly to a public hearing, against Dr. Ford's express wishes. This is deeply troubling.
The FBI is widely renowned for conducting fair, thorough, and expeditious investigations. Those Senators and members of the public who feel that additional investigation is required can trust this matter will be handled fairly.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
The FBI is currently updating Kavanaugh's background check with a limited investigation which is supposed to span one week.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...s-concerns-in-letter-to-fbi-director-n2523925
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on Saturday sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, expressing concerns about the department's investigation into Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Hatch's main concern stems from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's lawyers refusing to convey the Senate Judiciary Committee's previous interview offerings, which forced Ford to testify in front of the public.
Here's a copy of the letter (emphasis mine):
The Honorable Christopher Wray
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
Dear Director Wray:
I write regarding President Donald J. Trump's recent request that the FBI conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Brett Kavanaugh's background investigation file. The President noted that this request should be limited to scope and completed in one week from yesterday.
With your leadership and professional career staff handling the matter. I have no doubt that the FBI is capable of conducting the necessary interviews well within that time frame. It is my understanding that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and those identified as attending the gathering at which the alleged assault took place have publicly agreed to cooperate with the investigation.
I am writing to request, however, that you notify the White House Counsel's Office immediately if any witness(es) or their representatives seek to delay or are uncooperative in this process. One key reason for my concern regarding possible delay comes from testimony during the hearing this past Thursday. According to Dr. Ford, she would have preferred to have been interviewed in California, away from the spectacle of a public hearing. But her lawyers apparently refused to convey to their client numerous offers by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to conduct a public or private interview in the location of her choosing. The lawyers' refusal led directly to a public hearing, against Dr. Ford's express wishes. This is deeply troubling.
The FBI is widely renowned for conducting fair, thorough, and expeditious investigations. Those Senators and members of the public who feel that additional investigation is required can trust this matter will be handled fairly.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
The FBI is currently updating Kavanaugh's background check with a limited investigation which is supposed to span one week.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...s-concerns-in-letter-to-fbi-director-n2523925
Someone needs to go to jail for lying under oath or be disbarred.
I'm pretty sure if Ford had accused a Clinton or other democrat grandee of something like this, we would have heard every sordid detail in her life by now. They would have had people searching out every party she ever went to, every boyfriend, every parking ticket, every prescription she ever had, they would be filing lawsuits to get at her therapy records, their surrogates would be attacking her daily and relentlessly. Every cable show would have "experts" lecturing us that we cannot hold high school youths to adult standards of behavior, and that some embarrassing incidents are not our business.
This is hardly speculation on my part, since we saw the exact same thing play out in the Clinton impeachment process. We were angrily and repeatedly instructed that private sexual matters are none of our business and irrelevant to public life.
Now instead we get cowardly republicans intimidated by hysterical women. We get clueless people oohing and aahhing over how "credible" a privileged and sophisticated white woman was, apparently basing it on her nice smile and soothing delivery.
It's not how a serious country run by serious adults runs its affairs, but I guess that ship sailed a long time ago.
This is hardly speculation on my part, since we saw the exact same thing play out in the Clinton impeachment process. We were angrily and repeatedly instructed that private sexual matters are none of our business and irrelevant to public life.
Now instead we get cowardly republicans intimidated by hysterical women. We get clueless people oohing and aahhing over how "credible" a privileged and sophisticated white woman was, apparently basing it on her nice smile and soothing delivery.
It's not how a serious country run by serious adults runs its affairs, but I guess that ship sailed a long time ago.