Sexual assault is a serious crime.
And so is claiming assault that didn’t happen.
In the old days, almost always if a woman cried rape, the guy was assumed guilty and treated as such.

The fact that this is claimed 35 years or so after the alleged assault makes it very hard to prove or disprove.

---

Sorry it took so long. Here is the link to the entire report....very compelling. When I use the link the entire report downloads to my downloads folder.....pdf.iwv.org/09.30.18 Mitchell Memo.pdf

I think this woman has been caught in the maelstrom. She is being used, then will be cast away.

First, this link was not to your initial post. The dishonest headline about “exoneration” came from the dishonest ZeroHedge bufoons.

That aside the Mitchell Memo is 100% miscast as “exoneration” as Porforis points out. Mitchell is a political hack, see below.

And think about: Women says she was assaulted by a guy; the guy says, wasn’t me, I was in Vegas; the police don’t investigate. Only MORON of the highest degree says the guy was “exonerated.”

This Memo was written to dupe the nonlawyer. Here is what a lawyer says about Mitchell’s Memo:
Rachel Mitchell’s Former Colleague Slams Her Kavanaugh Memo as “Absolutely Disingenuous” 

Now we have at least 4 Yale classmate [one a roommate] saying Kavanagh was a blackout drunk. When asked this by Klobuchar, Kavanaugh was evasive and combative and ridiculously turning the question back to Klobuchar. No jury would ever believe him weighing his petulant and evasive response against 4 very credible witnesses. And if he lied in this detail, a jury would be instructed that believing he lied in small things permits them to disqualify any portion of his testimony based on truth.

Mitchell’s a Political Hack:
Sheriff Joe [Arpaio] is a stone cold racist and brags about it. His office treated Hispanics with contempt, profiled them on stops; refused to investigate sex crimes against them; planted evidence and harassed them; etc. On December 23, 2011, Federal District Judge Snow issued an order for Arpaio to STOP discriminating; he refused to comply and was ordered JAILED by the judge for contempt. He bragged about his refusal to comply with a Federal order and of course Trump pardoned him.

In 2005, Rachel Mitchell was put in charge of Maricopa County Sex Crimes and simultaneously charged to find out why the Arpaio’s office would not investigate sex crimes. She held the office all the way thru Sheriff Joe Reign of Hispanic Terror. Mitchell places more importance playing the good little GOP hack, rather than honoring her oaths as an attorney and Public servant and what is humane, moral and decent.

You know the Koch Brothers hate Trump, right?

---

This is a referendum on whether or not men can have their lives destroyed AT ANY TIME, based upon NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

I hated this dude as a SCOTUS pick. He's not big on the 4th amendment. But that's not what this is about. I mean, reject him on THAT. This other shit is more about the rest of us.

---

Subject belongs in the "Back Alley".

---

While there's no way there's enough evidence to even get close to convicting or even going to trial in a criminal court of law, this isn't a criminal court of law. This is a nomination process for a LIFETIME appointment to the supreme court.

Saying there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER is disingenuous. The evidence is circumstantial and doesn't stand by itself, but it still exists. I'm not saying he did it and we'll never know for sure, but his explanations regarding his drinking behavior do not stand up to casual scrutiny and various individuals that knew him at the time have contradicted him on that count. If you apply the same standards to Kavanaugh that you're applying to Ford (we're supposed to be fair here, right?), that offers a lot of doubt on his character and willingness to lie/stretch the truth, even when under oath.

---

So....lets say the guy drank a lot when he was a teen.
Should that keep him from office now?
I drank too much when I was a teen. My Dad died, and I kind of went off the deep end for awhile.
I passed out a few times too. Should that dictate my life now? I would say that it should not.
After all, who of us is without sin?
Should the last 35 years of someone's life not matter? Or in my case, 40 years?
Can someone throwing out a supposed crime that far back, with no REAL evidence ruin a guy's life?
You can say someone did something 35 years ago, and call it evidence? Is accusing someone of something that long ago be called "evidence"?
Its all "she said, he said" now. No way of proving anything either way. If there was a police report from back then, THAT would be evidence. But there is NOTHING but what she is claiming happened.

I think the whole thing should be thrown out.

As far as being in "the back alley". WHY?
If you cant discuss this as adults, maybe a person shouldn't post.

There is no way ANY of us can say they KNOW what is true in this case. A guy can lie, under oath, like Clinton did, and those that love the guy said he was telling the truth. Had Monica not kept the PROOF, the stain on her dress, Clinton would have kept lieing and would have got away with it.
In this case, there is NO proof Kavanaugh did anything wrong. And how can he prove that? He can't. So he has to defend himself against those that don't want him on the court just because of who he is, and who nominated him. THAT is the ONLY "truth" in this case.

---

You miss the point! His drinking and misogynist yearbook speak were never at issue in any way. It was only that they go to a pattern of behavior that is relevant to the assault allegations. But, then his carnivorous and serial LYING about those youthful indiscretions are now at issue. Again, not the indiscretions; but his LYING about them. And you KNOW he's a liar; why would a Christian not have a problem with him being a LIAR! What's the Bible say about that? Without truthfulness our system of justice collapses; so what kind of American wants a liar on the Court? Now please don't "answer" these questions like a Kavanaugh type, please answer the questions directly, I really want to understand your thinking; it doesn't make a ballhill bit of sense to me.

More than 1700 law professors [and counting], the ABA and 3 of his current clerks [who BTW just committed career suicide] have said his lying, his demonstration of poor judicial temperament and/or his UNPRECEDENTED display of partisanship disqualify him from SCOTUS.

But, the SENATE WILL APPROVE Him today, and I’ll tell you why. Porforis disagreed; but this is the super big picture. The Kavanaugh appointment is not just about shifting the philosophical balance; if it was they could have dumped Kavanaugh and put any number of right wing political hacks in there. This is about destroying public confidence in the only check and balance remaining to stop the Robberbarrons from establishing/entrenching their oligarchy. If the population believes SCOTUS is worthless any opinion they issue will be ignored. I’ll refer you to Amendment #18.

You are witnessing firsthand a koch coup!!!!!!! The SOS of Georgia is running for Governor and he knew he had no chance against a Black woman, Stacey Abrams; so, Kemp has purged 1 in 10 voters from GA’s voter rolls; 85% are minorities and people that just moved into the state. Plus tens of thousands new registrations have been disappeared. Any one supporting Kemp or his actions is a traitor. Right? This is happening in EVERY "red" state.