AIBU in thinking a drunken 18 year old boy should not be called to account for behaviour 35 years later?

[longwayoff]

I'm conflicted. Brett Kavanaugh, nominated by Trump as a Supreme Court judge, has been accused of locking Dr Christine Blasey Ford in a bedroom and sexually assaulting her. This happened in the early 1980s when they were teens at a party and he was very drunk, she hadnt been drinking. She says she is 100 percent certain he did this. He says wasn't me guv.
Her televised evidence was upsetting and convincing. I believe what she says and feel she should have whatever she needs to help her. BUT. Drunken 18 year old boy/man. All these years later? Is that fair? To wreck his career now? Personally, I loathe Trump and all his works, so politically I'm glad to see a fail. But this is not sitting well with me. I feel I should feel better about this. Convince me please.

The problem with the FBI investigation is that Trump has put a strict time limit on it, which will substantially restrict what they can really look into. I can't think why Trump wouldn't want to give them free rein.

@Oliversmumsarmy no it wasn't "dealt" with. Just like many rapes and assaults weren't. Just like mine weren't.

And the 100% was actually an answer to a direct question "with what degree of certainty do you believe he assaulted you?".

If you were certain it was a particular person then you would say it was the person. Not you are 100% sure it was a particular person. It comes across as though she has had to think if it was him in the first place.

She was answering the specific question that she was asked. How sure are you? She said she was 100% sure. If she had answered that question with his name it wouldn't have made sense.

Why bring it up now. Only reason I can think of is he is "famous" so there might be a few dollars in it.

And as for this.

Really? It's entirely more likely that it will damage her career than enhance it. She's not going to be compensated since she isn't officially the victim of a crime unless he is convicted. She is being verbally abused all over the internet and I've heard that she has had death threats too (although I don't know if that is true).

So she's hardly going to gain from this.

YABU. She was assaulted and I believe her, she has nothing to gain from this and is having her life raked through. This man is about to become one of the most powerful men in the US and should be held to account. He’s actions show the kind of person he is - IS he the right person to be making life changing decisions on women’s rights given that he’s likely a sexual predator??

Apart from anything else what message do we want to send to 18 year old boys today about what’s acceptable behaviour for an 18 year old boy?

Why bring it up now

Seriously?

Because he would have been responsible for overseeing every single sexual assault case brought in the US for many years to come and given his attitude towards women and his apparent propensity for sexual assault that would be a very very bad thing indeed.

Why are people so quick to defend a rich white man?

Yabu. Very very very unreaasonable.

Why are people so quick to defend a rich white man?

Are you saying because he’s a rich white man he must be guilty? Because if you are that’s a very dangerous attitude.

These comments just show that no matter how "perfect" a victim is there will still be people analysing every single word looking for justification of doubt.

surferjet good grief that’s a leap!

Are you seriously telling me that a skint black man would have the same amount of defenders willing to write off serious allegations?

“Are you saying because he’s a rich white man he must be guilty? Because if you are that’s a very dangerous attitude.”

Yep. That’s exactly what I am saying. Rich white men are the most disregarded persecuted group on the planet. Constantly overlooked, no representation, no platform to put their point of view across- it’s tragic, really.

Sitting on SC is a privilege. The very best people should be there (only). Not guys who had a serial habit of sexually menacing women, even if it was decades ago. GOP needs to choose again.

Elizabeth Rasor, Debbie Ramirez, Julie Swetnick AND Dr. Ford. Not to mention accusations from 2 other people who are still staying anonymous.

Bill Clinton not being punished for his crimes does not make it ok for every sexual predator to get off.

So important that our daughters NEVER let this shit go, always try to bring perpetrators to account. But when BK gets confirmed will just be proof to everyone that women shouldn't bother, argh......

On the SC he will make decisions about womens autonomy over their own body. If he believes he has the right to molest women ( yes multiple) and not face any challenge then he is the worst person to make those decisions.

Tbh his drinking alone should disqualify him. A Supreme Court position is the ultimate privilege and there are many suitable candidates. Are the republicans really saying that a drunk who may not understand the concept of consent is the only person they can find for this position?

"Why bring it up now?"

Are you really so naive about the implications of this?

The Republicans want to pack the Supreme Court with conservative judges, and top of their hit list is overturning Roe vs Wade, the judgement that gives American women the right to legal abortion.

If course having not one but two conservative judges (Google Clarence Thomas) with an attitude to women which at best smacks of rank hypocrisy and at worst amounts to criminal behaviour is relevant. How could it not be?

Even if Kavanaugh's behaviour only amounted to "sewing his wild oats" it would still be relevant, because this would be a man who saw no disconnect between having shagged around as a young man and happily avoiding the consequences, while wanting,as a middle aged man with power, to deny women access to abortions.

YeTalkShiteHen
If the accused was a skint black man we wouldn’t be talking about it because it wouldn’t be in the news.
But my view would be the same. I’d want evidence, forensic, eye witness testimony, a trial, before the skint black man was convicted. The rich white man is no different.
You cannot convict someone on word alone. If that was the case anyone could ruin anyone out of jealousy & spite.

He’s not being convicted of anything. His suitability for a job where he will have a significant impact on the lives of women is being called into question.

His references are being taken up.

I'm not going to try and convince you. You don't want to be convinced (reflected in the fact that there are almost 300 posts and you haven't been back since your op).

This is just another veiled thread that looks to excuse the behaviour of males while telling women to STFU.

The only 'conviction' possible is in the court of public opinion. Statute of Limitations, folks!

Avenatti's client (Julie Swetnick) is supposed to be producing very explosive material this week. With many corroborators. Buckle Up Everyone. We haven't even started.

ps: BK is very foolish if he thinks getting confirmation is all he has to get thru, once Dems are majority they will move to impeach him unless the evidence (astonishingly) becomes mostly discredited. If BK had any sense he would have withdrawn already & be glad if he got to hold onto present job.

Bill Clinton was hardly a great man was he, getting a young employee to suck his cock behind his wife’s back.
What happened to him?
Nothing much.

being drunk is exacerbation, not mitigation. Excessive swill tends to bring out true personalities...

BK was drinking under age in MD in 1982 (he was a year below the then legal age of 18 in 1982, which changed to 21 that year).

BK was drinking under age at Yale in 1983-1984.

The drinking age is strictly enforced compared to UK, usually can't even legally drink at home if parents give it to you. The only places BK was drinking booze legally was DC in 1983 (Feb 1965 birthday).

Since Juanita Broderick didn't get justice, nobody should?