I am not going to spend any time debating whether or not Kavanaugh did what Christine Blasey Ford said he did. We already know he did it. Left, right, black, white, male, female, asian, and brown we all know it's very, very likely Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ford when they were kids.
The only thing that's really up for debate is whether or not to call it "attempted rape."
The reason I know that we all know that there is a lot more than a 50/50 chance Kavanaugh did exactly what Dr. Ford said he did is because the White House made sure the FBI investigators didn't investigate much of anything.
The FBI didn't interview people Dr. Ford asked them to, or track down timelines based on her statements. The White House didn't even have the FBI interview Kavanaugh under oath, in a situation where his lies could put him in jeopardy.
You don't have your investigators do that when you think someone is innocent. And the people who are willing to defend someone like Kavanaugh don't cheer when they see an investigation done this badly -- unless they know the person being investigated is likely guilty.
not the real headline
YE OLDE DRINKING BUDDIES OF BRETT KAVANAUGH SAY HE SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED
The GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY led White House has been able to get away with this, in part, because of how strong a strangle hold male supremacy has on entire country.
And this can be seen in how the main stream media has handled their Kavanaugh coverage.
And this can be seen in how the main stream media has handled their Kavanaugh coverage.
The main steam media has been saying Kavanaugh is accused of "sexual misconduct." Ask yourelf what that means. Think about how that phrase might echoing in the back of your mind.
Does "sexual misconduct" mean a girl pinching a boy on the buttocks as he walks by?
Does "sexual misconduct" mean a boy looking at a 14 year girls new breasts in an obvious and demeaning way?
Doesn't "sexual misconduct" almost have to translate as "something sexual happened" but that something is only slightly worse than whatever it is so many Americans willingly fit inside "boys will be boys?"
The words the male dominated press have chosen to describe as "sexual misconduct"
a) a boy shoving a girl into a bedroom and locking the door (false imprisonment?)
b) throwing her on a bed and getting on top of her so he can grind his crotch into hers, grind his erection into her vagina --that's what happened right? that's what "grinding" on her means right? Kavanaugh was dry humping her as he forced his hands under her clothing, trying to get her clothes off (attempted rape)What we've been hearing over the last few days is a reassigned, minimized value of the crime of attempted rape.
Saying Kavanaugh was accused of "sexual misconduct" instead of "sexual assault" or "attempted rape" in the news headlines gets people to think Kavanaugh was a sexual bad boy when he was in high school and college. And I'm wondering if this is not having an almost brain-washing type of an effect.
Calling what Kavanaugh is accused of "sexual misconduct" instead of "attempted rape" is probably why some men have commented that they are disgusted with Kavanaugh's inability to apologize.
Apologize?
So maybe "sexual misconduct" is being heard as "sexual rudeness" too?
This minimizing of rape and attempted rape into "he's been a bad boy" is probably one of the reasons why a poll published a few days ago shows that 56% of republicans said they are willing to vote for a candidate that's been accused of "sexual assault."
56% OF REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WOULD VOTE
FOR A CANDIDATE DESPITE MULTIPLE SEXUAL ASSAULT ACCUSATIONS
The minute I read this, I knew Kavanaugh was a done deal
...no matter what the FBI found
Furthermore, I think #MeToo has kinda shot itself in the foot by cheering as some men have been fired and dragged out of the limelight ...before we figured out what really happened.
For example, I'm not sure of all the things John Conyers did. I was waiting for an in-depth news story. But then he was just gone, thrown away before whatever he did do could splatter on nearby democrats.
The accusations against Charlie Rose were vague before he disappeared too, because PBS didn't want it's reputation damaged any further.
Worse, it sounds like Matt Lauer was actually accused of rape, among a whole host of other things, before he was disappeared by NBC --because NBC didn't want its reputation smeared by being associated with him.This may look like #MeToo success to some. And it is a step in the right direction because, let's face it, pre-2017, a Daddy-figure man in the organization you worked for either cared or didn't when you were sexually harassed or assaulted.
That is, until relatively recently, a woman damn near had to become a little girl complaining about the rough and tumble boys when she complained about sexual harassment or sexual assault in the work place.
At least, this is how humiliating it felt to me
-- to complain about offensive behavior, about a man repetitively " accidentally" touching me... to another higher level man (Daddy-ish or Slave-owner-ish) when there was no guarantee that this person, who probably does believe you but doesn't care about boys-will-be-boys that much, was going to do anything more than pull Chad aside and say, "Tsk-tsk"
Now, women are being heard in way they weren't before. That's good. Now when a number of women come forward against one assailant, he is fired. That's good too. But these fired men are not being handed over to law enforcement because a lot of hands on sexual-type assault is not against the law. And that's not good at all.
That's unacceptable.
Many women may think #BelieveWomen was effective in the cases I listed above. But I don't want us all to just #BelieveWomen.
I don't believe women just because they're women. #BelieveWomen means #BelieveWomenToo. And this is something I do believe in.
Besides, if 94% of women currently won't lie about rape because male dominated courts tend to violate a woman a second time when she reports a rape to the authorities, then 50% of women will START lying about rape if they're always instantly believed.
We don't want thatWe should always want #BelieveWomenAsOftenAsMen to be in effect, which should also mean believing a women enough for a REAL investigation to be done, a public and transparent law enforcement investigation.
--very much unlike the investigation of Brett Kavanaugh by the FBI
The way it stands now, sans any public, law enforcement based investigation at all, companies and corporations like CBS are catapulting men like Les Moonves out of their organizations and out of the limelight without us ever being crystal clear on everything he got away with for decades.
To be clear, I'm not saying I can't look up details on Conyers, Rose, Lauer, or Moonves. I'm saying I, as a consistent reader of news, was not left with a clear picture of what each of them did.
- I was not left with an firm impression of what the more serious accusations were and what the lesser accusations were for each man.
- I don't have a general picture in my head of which accusations had corroborating witnesses and which ones didn't.
- I was only left with the vaguest idea what these men were accused of. I know random details but nothing of each individual men's pattern. I mean was there
I explain all this to say that the republicans may be sexist, rape culture swilling, male supremacist jackasses but #MeToo's focus is off target.
- sexual harassment that involved no physical contact?
- sexual harassment that did involve physical contact? (=sexual assault when I become Queen of The World)
- a rape that took place?
- a hostile work environment for women, created due to the man's sexual behavior? (I THINK Tavis Smiley did this by treating his news room like his personal harem. You can't screw your underlings and expect those screwed, those not screwed, and the ex-screwed to feel safe, to feel that promotions etc. are being evaluated fairly.)
In the here and now we need to focus on putting women in office and removing male supremacists from office. And the first male supremacist we need to remove is Susan Collins.
 |
| https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/susan-collins-2020-challenge/index.html |
Somebody should tell Collins that if there's a 50/50 chance a supreme court nominee is guilty of attempted rape, you shouldn't put him on the Supreme Court -- fair or not, we've supposedly got to protect the integrity of the court.
And the chances he did exactly what he was accused of were likely a lot higher than 50/50. If they weren't, there would have been a real FBI investigation where dozens of witnesses were interviewed. The FBI has the staff do that and do it in a week. The rush to judgement tells me everybody knows he did it. And that includes Collins.
Furthermore, this week's hearings were an extended job interview, not a criminal trial. The standard is different.
In the past, before we lowered ourselves enough to accept a GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY president, we'd have at least made it look like we honor the high standards required to be a Supreme Court Justice. To be more specific, pre GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY, we'd have at least made a supreme court nominee pretend he's not a republican operative looking for a black robe to legitimize his right-wing conspiracy theories (that protect the Clinton's comment seemed really off the wall in the moment.)
A retired Supreme Court Justice even came out to say Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed --due to the Clinton comment and his hysterical self-defense, I'm sure. A retired justices almost never do that.
Collins had more than one good reason to vote "no" on Kavanaugh. She failed do so. She's got to go. I hope the people of Maine are paying attention.
 |
| https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/susan-rice-collins-maine-senate-2020/index.html |
To me, it made no sense for the GOP to take a chance on alienating their own white women.
White supremacy on the right is what glues them together no matter what, but I still thought republicans might be concerned about losing republican voting independents -- despite the rape minimization done by calling what Kavanaugh was accused of "sexual misconduct."Orange Chump's brain-dead macho attitude aside, it would have made a lot more sense for someone to talk The Orange Genius into simply withdrawing Kavanaugh so he could send up the next conservative judge on the list.
I mean, Kavanaugh is on the court now anyway. But at what cost? Aren't they going to lose Senators and Congressmen over Kavanaugh come election day?
(Maybe it's me that's over-estimating the brown-under girded blue wave to come in November?)I've since read that the supreme court has the Gamble v United States on it's docket already -- and that Kavanaugh's vote will be key.
As you've already noticed, even if you are as unfamiliar with the actual law as I am, in this country you cannot try somebody for the same crime. That's what we mean we say there's no "double jeopardy." However, what you have also noticed is that there's a loop hole that allows different government agencies to go after a criminal for different aspects of the same crime.
That is, a state government can charge somebody with murder, lose the case and then the feds can have a second bite of the apple. Using different charges, federal prosecutors could get a murderer by doing something like charging them with violation of another person's civil rights (via killing them).
Something like that.
Apparently, Gamble v the United States seeks to get rid of this exception to double jeopardy.
And Kavanaugh is supposedly already on board to get that done. Why is this so important you ask? I can think of a number of Civil Rights Cases that might have been negatively impacted by this. And anything that leans into "states rights" is bad for black people. But I'm thinking Mueller has already successfully charged and gotten plea deals and convictions on people like Paul Manafort who may, in turn, be a witness against Trump.
If Flynn, for example, has nothing else he can lose after Gamble v U.S. -- that's bad for the Russia investigation.
Some say it's too late for Gamble v U.S to help Manafort, Flynn, and the rest. But I'm not so sure.
If Manafort already has a plea bargain on one set of crimes and Gamble goes Trump's way, who is to say how a judge will interpret the outcome of the Gamble case? That is, I think Mueller has charges for Manafort that he hasn't gone to trial on yet. So maybe Gamble really wouldn't hinder the Russia Investigation. But what if a judge decides, based on a new Gamble ruling, that whatever Mueller still has in his back pocket really should have been part of the original case?
Gamble v U.S. might not be anything. Maybe. But Kavanaugh's stance that a sitting president probably cannot be indicted is everything.
From the White House's perspective, minimizing rape was nothing, is nothing compared to Trump getting out from under the Russia Investigation.
Whatever. For now, we have this half-baked rape investigation to think about.
We cannot have a rapist or attempted rapist stay on the Supreme Court. And I don't care how long ago it happened, how drunk Kavanaugh was, or how old he was either.
So I hope the democrats really do attempt to have a real investigation done then impeach Brett Kavanaugh after the November election ---because being drunk doesn't turn you into somebody you're completely not.
I don't believe that. I haven't since I was 9 or 10 year old kid listened to a drunk white neighbor in the hallway verbally attack me with racial insults directed at my father.But even if being drunk does warp your true character in some way, even if alcohol does more than just make you less inhibited, when you get drunk and drive, you're held responsible whether you are 15, 25, or 85 years of age.
Similarly, if you get drunk and falsely imprison someone and attempt to rape them, you should be held responsible at 15, 25, or 85 years of age.
When women have half the power in this country there will be varying levels of misdemeanor and felony sexual harassment and sexual assault charges. Men will no longer be able to say "Ooops, I misbehaved. Ooops I wasn't a gentleman" when they've raped someone
--with the male dominated press half-way providing them cover by calling these "sexual assaults" instances of "sexual misconduct," instances of bad-boyness.
When women have the power they should have, any attorney who puts such crimes into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) will be disbarred.
NDAs are high on my hit list.
And once we get the attorneys in line, the NBCs, CBSs, PBSs, etc will no longer be able to fire men and hide what the men they've hired and supported have done and also hide what the network or corporation has done to shield the sexual predator...for decades.
We've got a long way to go. We start by getting out the vote next month and again in 2020.
The American Bar has re-opened it's Kavanaugh evaluation despite their findings being too late to stop the appointment. Even it there's not an impeachment of Kavanaugh down the road, maybe we'll know exactly how big a crime was committed here.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/american-bar-association-reopens-kavanaugh-evaluation
BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM
No comments:
Post a Comment