There are major differences between the amount of evidence against Kavenaugh

[dsc]

and that against Fairfax. In Kavenaugh's case Ford had told others well before Kavenaugh was even up for appelate judge let alone the Supreme Court, Kavenaugh had been accused by more than one person of similar things, he had repeatedly lied under oath about other things, she put a good friend of his from high school in the room and that friend didn't deny it happened, didn't say he couldn't remember due to his being a drunken lout, he ran and hid, and then Kavenaugh lied under oath repeatedly while defending himself against her charges.

In Fairfax's case, Tyson told no one prior to his winning election for Lt Gov, Fairfax has no record of lying anywhere much less under oath, hasn't be accused by anyone else, and hasn't been shown to have lied in his defense against her charges.

Now I felt Kavenaugh was unfit for the Court based on his perjury in 2006 and again in 2018 before Dr. Ford came forward. I had no opinion on her charges until after the testimony when he lied repeatedly (lying about terms, lying about Renata, lying about his calendar) and she didn't. At that point, I believed her and not him. In the case of Dr. Tyson, I have no opinion. They are telling diametrically opposed stories and neither one is a known liar. Dr. Tyson has no collaborating evidence at all. There is one point which we should be able get to the bottom of now. She says she cut off all contact with him, he says they kept in touch. The one who is telling the truth about that is in my opinion more likely to be telling the truth over all. Put them both under oath, look at his and her phone records and emails from that time, either they kept in touch or they didn't. I don't think that is too much to ask before we tell the voters of Virginia, I know you voted to be governed by Democrats but instead you are going to be governed by a right wing hack.

[Dennis Donovan]

1. What if he produces proof of continued contact after the alleged encounter?

...like letters, emails, etc? That would undermine her credibility as a victim?

[dsc]

2. yes it would

and conversely if after looking phone records, emails we find nothing or that it was all initiated by him with her just giving quick answers or none at all it undermines his credibility.

[Vinca]

3. This whole thing really bothers me. It happened 15 years ago. I'm a woman. I can appreciate

Dr. Tyson's memories of the incident. What I have a hard time getting around is "why now?" The same might have been said about the Kavanaugh brouhaha (although I think there was more evidence of probability and if the investigation hadn't been a rush sham it might have surfaced). For 15 years this has been her secret and, if he is as she says, he's most likely done it again and again and again. I don't think anyone else has come forward and if they do that would change my opinion. So why wait until he's gaining a bit of notice? She could have gone elsewhere to publicize this after the Washington Post turned down the story. And what's the point? The investigation into the incident can't be properly done after 15 years and I would imagine the statute of limitations is up. I guess she could sue him in civil court or maybe she feels a public flogging is enough. We immediately believe the women. Why don't we immediately believe the men? For all we know they were both drunk and neither has an accurate recollection. I guess I wonder what an accuser is expecting to happen and why and I wonder why, without more proof, the accused should have his or her life ruined. It's a serious allegation and he might have done it, but where do we go from here? Does every Democratic man subject himself to a purity screening or do we include Democratic women, too? Do memories count or do we need proof? Few of us are pure as the driven snow.