Adam Guettel on Dr. Ford/ Kavanaugh

[KFC1991]

https://twitter.com/adamguettel/status/1042435627780898823?s=19


The link is to the following tweet by Adam Guettel:

"Kavanaugh is qualified.This accusation lacks credibility and is suspiciously timed.And I’m a liberal Democrat."

He later tweeted:
"Hi friends and ex-fans, my goodness what an outpouring! Listen, the guy seems credible to me. She doesn’t - so far. If I’m wrong. Okay. Then I’ll be wrong. What do you want? My head on a pike?"

I saw someone say "I guess Clara's not the only one who got kicked in the head" or something like that.

[LarryD2]

So I guess his #metoo moment must be just around the corner.

[kmissa]

Oof. Dont know he is, def won’t support any shows he’s attached to.

[mar6411]

So is your intent to have a series of threads on individual theater people's twitter posts on the Kavanaugh nomination?  Where are all the other ones?  I'm sure others have posted. 

What is significant about Guettel's post? And why is this one significant to you?  You posted the comment with no context or comment of your own.  I assume there will be a ton more threads so that we can see what everyone else has to say. 

[Back Row]

Kavanaugh is ruthlessly ambitious, hyperpartisan, and seems to have a casual relationship with the truth. It has been verified that he has lied under oath before, so there is no reason to believe him now. He is probably no less ethical than the hyperpartisan, ruthlessly ambitious Senators who will be voting on his confirmation, but it seems that we should be holding Supreme Court justices to a higher standard.

Adam Guettel should be looking past his judicial qualifications and start examining his moral and ethical qualifications. Lying just comes too easily for him. Even setting this allegation aside, Kavanaugh simply does not measure up.

And by the way, I think Dr. Ford is infinitely more credible than the guy who swears that he did not even attend a party that has not even been specified by date and time.

[John Adams]

LarryD2 said: "So I guess his #metoo moment must be just around the corner."

Not sure what you mean by that.

Are you implying that some woman might take unfair advantage of the "woman are always to be believed"/#metoo bandwagon effect to falsely implicate him because they disagree with his opinion?

...or do you mean to imply that he actually is an abuser and his moment of accusation is coming...?

I agree with Adam Guettel's statement. If women are to be believed in situations like this, then the accusation DOES lack credibility and IS suspiciously timed. Many women have testified that the accusation doesn't match his character.  

I would prefer that the SCOTUS seat be filled by a liberal candidate, but false accusation that can destroy a career is a methodology of scumbags.

Situations like this one, and others like it decay and deteriorate the gains achieved by the #metoo movement. They invalidate the progress made by casting a pall over whether/not accusers really should be considered trustworthy, and whether/not women can/should be believed.

Specifically in this case, a question is now raised as to which women should be believed - the ones who testify that his moral character is honorable, or the singular accuser and her supporters?

[LarryD2]

John Adams said: "
I agree with Adam Guettel's statement. If women are to be believed in situations like this, then the accusation DOES lack credibility and IS suspiciously timed. Many women have testifiedthat the accusation doesn't match his character."

You're right: the timing is so suspicious. I can't imagine why someone would come forward when the person who assaulted her is about to be installed in a lifetime appointment to the highest judicial body in the country.

And yeah, I guess it does lack credibility. That must be why dozens of classmates have come forward to say they knew of the assault occurring at the time when it actually happened, and Dr. Ford's therapist has corroborated it from a session that took place years ago.

 

[John Adams]

LarryD2 said: "You're right: the timing is so suspicious. I can't imagine why someone would come forward when the person who assaulted her is about to be installed in a lifetime appointment to the highest judicial body in the country.

And yeah, I guess it does lack credibility. That must be why dozens of classmates have come forward to say they knew of the assault occurring at the time when it actually happened, and Dr. Ford's therapist has corroborated it from a session that took place years ago."

What you cite is also countered by statements that she told no one about the assault, and that the therapist was told there were four attackers (now there were only two).

So yeah... the accuser DOES lack credibility - which of her versions of the testimony is to be believed?

 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Character witnesses should not be weighed the same as someone who actually observed what happened or was the one who experienced the alleged crime. If the other 65 women (a list that Kavanaugh also suspiciously had ready to go) were actually there to observe what had happened and denied Dr. Ford's allegations, then that would be one thing. Them just saying their experience with him was great and they can't see him doing something like this is another. I mean that's nice and all, but doesn't really do anything to hurt Dr. Ford's allegations or show one way or the other that Kavanaugh actually committed the crime of which he is accused. Like I said in the NYCB thread, Larry Nassar had so many parents of former gymnasts, some former gymnasts, and colleagues write all kinds of letters of support of his great character (online or otherwise) and how he would never do something like this based on THEIR experience only for it to come out that yeah, he did it. So understand letters attesting to someone's character can be weighed, but recognize how limiting that is as evidence to try to disprove a specific incident(s) happened at a particular night that those writing those character letters did not observe.

Dr. Ford is ready to go forward with the investigation. Allow it to happen like it did for Clarence Thomas, even if what will most likely happen is an inconclusive finding. Kavanaugh should welcome it to because at worst it will just result in where we are now but at least it may make some people think since he was willing to have it investigated that he has nothing to hide and may actually be innocent in this. This game that is being played just makes the whole thing look shady.

Also in these cases, there is usually only testimonial evidence from the victim and may be the accused unless he/she invokes their fifth amendment rights that can be provided. Also, since it happened so long ago and the nature of sexual assault crimes is usually a he said/she said situation even with DNA evidence (in much more contemporary cases) so those who have a standard that there needs to be some sort of physical evidence or footage of what had occurred will be the type of person who will never garner a conviction against somebody accused of sexual assault. As an attorney, I find sexual assault is the crime where people require the most stringent evidence to believe the victim, even outside the court of law and in the court of public opinion even above armed robbery, various forms of homicide, assault/battery, etc. People are much more willing to believe victims in those cases with lesser evidence than they require of sexual assault victims (unless the victim is like a white woman and the accused are like black/Latino men). 

So as a result of what I said above, some who have been sick and tired of decades of how sexual assault is treated (whether or not they personally faced that situation) may be over-correcting the situation going in with a social media believe the accuser and brand the accused right away. To me that's a bit debatable as I see a lot of the fear of that happening to be a political tool being used by certain people who really do not want to make any progress on how we see sexual assault and how we need to make more people (namely men) responsible for their actions. That said, as someone who also cares a lot about wrongful convictions, I don't think it's entirely invalid either.

I think what is most telling to me in this situation is how quickly people make a judgment on Dr. Ford's character but at the same time talk about how there is no evidence. There really is no evidence that can be produced that will be enough to convince certain people in these types of cases. In a criminal court where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be exonerated IF you don't find the current evidence presented credible (reasonable minds may disagree as some do find her credible) but people are going beyond that are actually take strong positions that he's innocent and she's a liar. To me, that's revealing.

[thebeautyis3]

Just because she didn't tell anyone about the assault doesn't mean the young men involved (or other people who might have heard things at the party) didn't.

[LizzieCurry]

kmissa, why would you want to broadcast that you don't know who a Broadway composer is?

[John Adams]

Just to be clear on why I entered this conversation, I most definitely don't know what the truth is regarding Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford, and like Guettel, I can (at this point in time) find reason to question (NOT discount, mind you, but question) the veracity of the accusation. 

I entered this conversation because I agree with Adam Guettel's twitter posts, especially the latter quoted by the OP: "Listen, the guy seems credible to me. She doesn’t - so far. If I’m wrong. Okay. Then I’ll be wrong. What do you want? My head on a pike?"

I'm getting tired of men (or anyone, for that matter) being skewered by #metoo zealots when they publicly express a reasonable thought that ires the zealots.

[KFC1991]

John Adams, do you have a link about her changing her story about the number of attackers? I haven't heard about that or anything that makes the accuser not credible.

[MyLife]

The only way to know if the alleged victim is credible is if there is a complete investigation of the event in question. Anita Hill's investigation took 3 days. If Kavanaugh has nothing to hide, why is he against such an investigation? Almost like a President not wanting to release his tax returns...

[John Adams]

KFC1991 said: "John Adams, do you have a link about her changing her story about the number of attackers? I haven't heard about that or anything that makes the accuser not credible."

Yes. There's a USA Today article called, Kavanaugh, too? Christine Blasey Ford's Account is Missing Key Details of Assault. You can find it via a google search. 

I'm not linking it here, but not because I want to disrespect you in any way. I simply don't want to enter into a conversation, or change the intent of your OP by attempting to make it seem as if I take sides with either Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford.

If I choose to take a side with anyone, it's with Guettel, for the reason I stated above, and in the spirit of responding to your OP.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Now that Guettel's twitter account has been brought to my attention, I also find it funny he rewteeted Amy Alkon in support of her retweet about "real social justice" that helps people who are too broke to be "woke" v. the "elite kind" when I don't think he's been participating in grassroots level social justice activism where he would see people of all walks of life coordinating their efforts together in the name of social justice. And isn't he part of the elite class that that tweet was mocking?

Anyway, it's not the rich elite or out-of-touch academics who came up with the term "woke" or where many of these modern social justice ideas came from (the academics may have coined terms after observing these ideas) that are annoying certain people but rather were created by people on a grassroots level. The ones doing the most push-back and trying to shape the narrative to paint these people in a negative life and roll back the progress that has been made tend to be members of a elite as well who get their supporters to follow them and think they are populist ideas.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Can I ask why on earth anyone finds Kavanaugh credible when he's an admitted perjurer? He's lied under oath before. 

Women (and men) who come forward with these sorts of allegations are ALWAYS accused of lying, always have their motives questioned, and are always painted as wanting to gain "attention" from the accusation. And really, what do women stand to gain from lying about such a thing? We can see from the number of women who have spoken out against Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, Les Moonves, and others that their careers were actively harmed by their rebuffing of these inappropriate advances, or by their complaints at the time it happened. Look at Monica Lewinsky - she became a national punchline for two decades when she spoke her truth. Anita Hill was publicly humiliated. Rape victims are asked what they did to cause their own assault when they try to report it, or if they come forward later, they're asked why they didn't report it at the time. For every person that comes forward, there are more women in the dark behind her who haven't because they are afraid of their lives being ruined by simply saying what happened to them. It's been proven that actual, confirmed lies about sexual assault are very rare, and typically the people who lie about them have a lengthy history of other such high stakes, public lies. The vast majority of people are telling the truth. 

So I ask again - what does a woman stand to gain by speaking out about an assault by a powerful man? 

Nothing. The answer is nothing, other than perhaps, in an ideal world, justice. 

[John Adams]

perfectlymarvelous said: "So I ask again - what does a woman stand to gain by speaking out about an assault by a powerful man?"

It's seems very, very possible that the current accusation is not about what Dr. Ford might have to gain or lose. If it were about what she might personally stand to gain (peace of mind, justice, etc.), she could have spoken out much earlier. 

This accusation appears to be much more about what either political party stands to gain or lose due to the specific timing of her accusation. That is why the timing of the accusation raises suspicion.

[perfectlymarvelous]

I still find that absolutely ridiculous. The woman is getting death threats and had to leave her home and stay somewhere else because she feared for her and her family's safety. She is an accomplished, intelligent woman. Why on EARTH would you think this is politically motivated? It's not as though she's a political operative, she's a private citizen who is still reckoning with the long-term effects of what Kavanaugh did to her decades ago. You're postulating based on absolutely nothing other than your own conspiracy theories and it's ludicrous and offensive. 

[iwuldwf]

He's the first self-identified "liberal Democrat" I've ever seen whose Twitter likes are dominated by users like Ann Coulter, Donald Trump Jr, James Woods, Tomi Lahren, Chadwick Moore, Dana Loesch and someone who posts under the name "Educating Liberals."  I mean obviously he's perfectly free to be politically conservative, but why lie about it?

Also, I'm not saying his own #metoo moment is coming, as others have suggested/questioned, but as someone pointed out in a reply to his tweet, this passage from a 2003 NYT profile would probably play differently if published in today's environment:  "It seems that even in his worst traits Guettel will always be compared with Richard Rodgers, who bedded any chorus girl he could get his hands on. ''I know I've hurt a lot of women, and I feel terrible about it,'' Guettel says. ''It's easy to get away with things when you have money and people think you're attractive.""

[John Adams]

perfectlymarvelous said: "You're postulating based on absolutely nothing other than your own conspiracy theories [...]"

Well... you're wrong about that, but I don't feel like there's anything I could write that might make you feel differently.

Completely off-topic, but WHAT'S UP WITH THE SPELL CHECK ON THIS SITE??? "this" becomes "his", "there's" becomes "here's"... yipes. 

[Back Row]

John Adams said: "KFC1991 said: "John Adams, do you have a link about her changing her story about the number of attackers? I haven't heard about that or anything that makes the accuser not credible."

Yes. There's a USA Today article called,Kavanaugh, too? Christine Blasey Ford's Account is Missing Key Details of Assault. You can find it via a google search.

I'm not linking it here, but not because I want to disrespect you in any way. I simply don't want to enter into a conversation, or change the intent of your OP by attempting to make it seem as if I take sides with either Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford.

If I choose to take a sidewith anyone, it's with Guettel, for the reason I stated above, and in the spirit of responding to your OP."

The USA article was an opinion piece written by the president of Concerned Women of America, a right wing group which would be expected to support Kavanaugh. My guess is that some of the holes in Dr. Ford's story are intentional. Kavanaugh has already denied attending the party, even though Dr. Ford gave no details on time or place. Are we to believe that Kavanaugh never attended any party during that time? Because that is the only way his statement makes sense. 

[Bwayfan292]

The victim should be believed first. I am not discrediting her in any way, but it doesnt seem odd to anyone else that she finally works up the courage after 6 years to tell people on nomination night? Like out of any day you choose its nomination night. It just seems kinda odd. Unfourtantley, you can ruin a mans career like that today.

Im definitly not republican, but it just seems to odd to be true. Again I will be supporting her and hope im wrong. Always believe the victim first.

[KFC1991]

John Adams,one of the things in Ford's favor is that she has asked for an FBI investigation. It doesn't seem like a liar would call for that. But the GOP says no to the FBI investigation. Kavanaugh's defenders seem to think an investigation would hurt their guy.

[ColorTheHours048]

This thread is a mess.

Guettel is a known a**hole and so is Kavanaugh. They’re both exactly the kind of man to deflect sexual assault allegations at any cost. And the sad part is that Ford’s hearing will almost definitely turn up inconclusive, regardless of how sound her testimony is, because you can’t prove sexual assault unless you have physical evidence. And unless there was a camera in the room 36 years ago, Republicans will fall in line behind Trump and vote in Kavanaugh.