And Kennedy decides to fuck us all

[Lord Jim]

Well, negotiations for a hearing with Ford sometime next week are underway...we'll see how it plays out...

As far as playing politics goes, there's plenty of that going around with both sides in the Senate...

The Dems have taken a page right out of Donald Trump's playbook, blatantly telling lies and presenting gross mischaracterizations that can easily be disproven...

On Monday I saw Senate Dem Whip Richard Durbin shamelessly lying his butt off on Morning Joe, claiming that Feinstein kept the accusation from Ford secret out of "respect for her wishes" and only released it after the professor came forward...

Which anybody who has been paying the slightest attention to this knows is total bullshit; the information about the accusation was leaked within hours of the close of the Kavanaugh hearings last week, in a fairly blatant attempt to pressure Ford to come forward (because the people who leaked it knew there was no way they could use it effectively against Kavanaugh if the accuser remained anonymous). Pressure which she yielded to Sunday afternoon.

The other Real Boy deal-breaker the Dems have been peddling is that they are calling for the FBI investigation in response to Ford's wishes:

Senate Democrats Support Christine Blasey Ford’s Request for FBI Probe

A number of Senate Democrats came out Tuesday in support of Christine Blasey Ford’s request for an FBI investigation into her sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before she testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Northern California psychology professor, who goes by Christine Blasey professionally, alleges that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party when they were teenagers, over 35 years ago. Judiciary committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) had scheduled Blasey and Kavanaugh to testify in front of the committee on Monday.

Blasey, however, said through her lawyers Tuesday[late Tuesday afternoon] that an FBI investigation should be “the first step” before she is put “on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident.”

Feinstein, who had kept Blasey’s allegations private since July at her request,[until they were leaked after the Kavanaugh hearings were over to pressure her to come forward] released a series of tweets calling the rushed process “reminiscent of the treatment of Anita Hill,” referring to the law professor who accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment at his hearing in 1991.

“We should honor Dr. Blasey Ford’s wishes and delay this hearing,” Feinstein wrote on Twitter. “A proper investigation must be completed, witnesses interviewed, evidence reviewed and all sides spoken to. Only then should the chairman set a hearing date. The decision to come forward or not come forward has always been Christine Blasey Ford’s, and that includes her participation in a hearing.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) released a statement Tuesday saying that an investigation was “precedent” and “quite clearly the right thing to do.”

Chuck Schumer
‏Verified account @SenSchumer
Sep 19

I strongly support Dr. Ford’s call for an FBI investigation before a hearing is held. An immediate FBI investigation is not only consistent with precedent, it is also quite clearly the right thing to do.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/se ... 32ebfdae77

Very accommodating of the Huff Post to participate in this grossly misleading spin. It's really not all that surprising that Chuck and Di would "strongly support Dr. Ford’s call " since they had both made the exact same "call" publicly on Monday, long before Ford or her lawyer had said anything on the subject, late Tuesday afternoon:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer on Monday called the sexual misconduct allegation brought by a woman against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh extremely credible and said the FBI should reopen its background investigation on the judge.

A planned vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination should be put on hold while the FBI investigates the allegation against President Donald Trump’s nominee for the nation’s highest court, Schumer said. “Trying to rush this through on Thursday is an insult to the women of America and an insult to the majesty of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Schumer told ABC’s “The View,” referring to a planned vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... LX1VN?il=0

Ms. Feinstein, meanwhile, accused Republicans of rushing into the hearing to block an investigation into Dr. Blasey’s accusations. “I’m disappointed the F.B.I. and White House are failing to take even the most basic steps to investigate this matter,” she said in a statement issued late Monday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/p ... -alto.html

In fact, between Sunday evening when the leaking of her accusation had forced her to come forward, and late Tuesday afternoon when her attorney set out a re-opened FBI investigation as a pre-condition for her testifying, a whole slew of Senate Dems had already come forward demanding the exact same thing...

Here's one more from Patrick Leahy (you can find plenty of others )

September 18, 2018 10:01 AM ET

Democrats are calling for a full FBI investigation of the allegation before a hearing, saying Monday is too soon.

"I'd have the professionals go in there, seek corroborating evidence, talk to the people involved, certainly talk to the third person who they claimed was there, and that hasn't been done," Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman, told NPR's Morning Edition. "This might take a week or two to get all of this together, but what difference does one or two weeks make when you're talking about a lifetime appointment."

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/64908571 ... ikely-wont

So the Huff Post headline should really have read:

Christine Blasey Ford Supports Senate Democrats Request for FBI Probe

My purpose in pointing all this out is not to pass judgement on the objective merits in this case of a re-opened FBI investigation, (for which I suspect there will be strong public support if Dr. Ford testifies, and which would not necessarily take weeks or months to conduct; the FBI investigation in the Hill case that folks seem so fond of only delayed her hearing by three days.) but just to illustrate the fact that shameless politics playing has not been the exclusive province of the Republican Senate members in this case...

[ex-khobar Andy]

You mean that there are political considerations on both sides of this nomination process? I am shocked, shocked to hear this.

[BoSoxGal]

Maybe we should talk about the video clips of Orrin Hatch urging an FBI investigation in Hill’s case and now saying an FBI investigation is totally inappropriate in Ford’s case.

Sorry but the blatant lying and scumbaggery politics of the GOP on this issue continues to stand out as far worse than anything the Dems are doing - the party has gone full scumbag mode.

Now they’re talking about hiring a woman attorney to question Ford because they’re too gutless to do it themselves. They are utter pieces of shit; I can’t wait until they all kick the bucket.

[BoSoxGal]

I knew Trump couldn’t resist - he’s started in with the victim shaming; wants to know where the police (FBI!) report is from when Blasey was attacked at 15.

The one good thing I’ve seen in all of this is that at least as far as the news anchors (not FOX) are concerned, it seems like we’ve made significant progress in educating about the dynamics of sexual assault victim response.

[BoSoxGal]

[wesw]

I must ve missed it....

did he call her a dirty little whore , or something?



JUDGE KAVANAUGH MUST ANSWER THESE ACCUSATIONS!!!!!

AND HE MUST ANSWER THEM BEFORE DR FORD MAKES THEM!!!!!!!!!

MEN ARE EVIL!!!!!!!

DOWN WITH HOTPANTS111111

[Lord Jim]

Now they’re talking about hiring a woman attorney to question Ford because they’re too gutless to do it themselves.

And if they do it themselves, then they have the optics of 11 men grilling one woman about sexual assault allegations...

Like I've said from the beginning of this, so long as Dr. Ford shows up to testify, it's a lose-lose politically for the Senate GOP no matter how you cut it...the only question will be just how big a political price the GOP will pay, (not just in the Senate races, but in the House, and further down ballot as well)...

They only way they dodge the bullet and turn this into a wash politically is if she doesn't show up...

[Lord Jim]

With the midterms looming, this is a complete "court of public opinion" thing and all the polling shows that while the bases have gone to their respective political corners, opposition to Kavanaugh has been growing, and there's an enormous amount of that "court" that is sitting out there left to be persuaded:

Foes of Kavanaugh confirmation outnumber backers -- poll

Support for the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court has plummeted by 9 points in the past month, with opponents outnumbering supporters, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Thursday.

"Brett Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee below water in the history of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll," NBC headlined.

The survey, taken Sunday through Wednesday, found 38 percent opposed to the high court nominee, 27 percent saying they were "strongly opposed."

By contrast, support for Kavanaugh's confirmation stood at 34 percent, with 25 percent voicing strong support. Twenty-eight percent said they were not familiar enough to voice an opinion on the nominee.

Pluralities in July and August polls supported the nomination. Opposition has grown from 26 percent in July, to 29 percent in August, to today's 38 percent.

The poll identified growing opposition to the Kavanaugh confirmation from older American women, from suburban women -- a key constituency in the 2018 mid-term elections -- and from independent voters. Independents now oppose Kavanaugh by a 37-21 percent margin.

The Supreme Court nominee remains popular with the Republican base. Seventy-three percent of Republicans surveyed back his confirmation to the high court. Just four percent oppose him. In contrast, two third of Democrats oppose Kavanaugh while just 8 percent support him.

The poll ws taken Sunday through Wednesday. On Sunday, the Washington Post disclosed the name of Prof. Christine Blasey Ford and detailed her allegation that a drunken Kavanaugh tried to rape her while both were students at the Georgetown Prep School in Washington, D.C.

https://www.seattlepi.com/local/politic ... 245597.php

[Big RR]

They only way they dodge the bullet and turn this into a wash politically is if she doesn't show up...

Or if she's unprepared and comes across as a crazy person or liar.

[BoSoxGal]

I’m not sure that it could ever be ‘a wash’ now; we’ve got Orrin Hatch doing his FBI 180, calling Ford ‘mixed up’ without ever hearing a word from her mouth, some other old white Congressman making jokes about the situation (RBG claims Lincoln groped her), the President is now starting in with the victim shaming, etc. They’ve already made a clear showing of antipathy and disbelief toward a teenaged victim of sexual assault, just as many of them did in defending Roy Moore. Heck, just having the daily reminders of the Hill hearings shit show has got to be raising the ire of millions of women who lived through that disgusting rejection of women’s experiences 27 years ago, and educating all the women born since who never saw the spectacle for themselves.

Good luck with that as the midterms loom; since 1.21.17 the sleeping giant has been stirring, ever more awakened by the evidence of scumbaggery provided regularly by this pResident and his GOP. Kavanaugh was a really bad choice in this regard, given his very poor language on women’s reproductive rights, the Ford allegation, his own joking on camera about depraved high school hijinks lending credibility to her accusations, and now we are learning that female law students interviewing to clerk for him were advised to dress and look a certain way in order to enhance their chances of hire - he’s pretty clearly a pig whose character is as exemplary as all the other white male scumbags who hide behind their privilege in the top echelons of government and the private sector.

Well, #timesup! I think we are going to see a continued onslaught of women running for office and pushing hard for changes. While I’ve elsewhere expressed some concern for the process of #metoo accusations and the immediate ramifications on the careers of accused men, I hereby assert that whatever fallout occurs that might be not entirely deserved is the necessary collateral damage in the process of beginning to balance the scales after hundreds of years of women being denigrated and abused pretty much with impunity. Millions of women have suffered under that regime, so if thousands of men have to suffer in the process of righting the ship, I’m 100% ok with that.

[Lord Jim]

They only way they dodge the bullet and turn this into a wash politically is if she doesn't show up...

Or if she's unprepared and comes across as a crazy person or liar.

Given her professional background, (as a college professor) she should certainly be experienced and poised with public speaking and answering questions in a public forum, combined with the apparent degree of belief and conviction she has about the accusations (strong enough to pass a polygraph test) it seems to me that her coming across as a nut or a deliberate liar would be extremely unlikely...

Far more likely that she'll come across (to most people) as a serious minded person who sincerely believes what she is saying.

[Big RR]

I can only give you my experience; I twice testified before Congressional committees one in DC and once in NY, for about 15 minutes each time and spent a lot of time preparing for each. The topics were related to IP law (which is the area I specialize in) and the hearings were not televised or even well attended, but they still were tough. Like her, I am an attorney and have significant teaching an public speaking experience (even served as an expert witness at depositions and in court a number of times), but answering questions under oath from a panel of people, some of whom were hellbent on tripping you up, is very different. And preparation is the key to coming across as honest and forthcoming. Add to it the emotional toll of the subject matter, the live TV coverage with people looking to parse your every word, and just the length of the testimony (likely hours), and you could see how a skilled interrogator could make an unprepared person look questionable at the least. If I were counselling her, that is the thing I would be most concerned about, and sufficient time to prepare is key; I'd almost guarantee you that Kavanaugh has been preparing for the hearings almost since this began.

[BoSoxGal]

I can only speak from my own professional experience, but in working with sexual assault victims - adults and children alike - it was my practice to speak to them as sparingly as possible prior to testimony before the jury. Children would be interviewed once by a forensic interviewer immediately after allegations came to light, and I would meet with the child once just prior to trial, showing them the courtroom and working up a rapport and going over some aspects of their prior statement. With adults I might meet more than once, but that was usually for case updates and handholding, and would not be to exhaustively ‘prep’ them for testifying - that kind of prep happened with cops and physicians and therapists and forensic scientists, but not with victims.

Victims need only speak honestly, from the heart about their trauma - and credibility is much enhanced by there being very little appearance of being prepped or rehearsed. I preferred my victims to be as unrehearsed as possible so that the natural emotion - including tears, shaking, etc. - came up as questioned gently by me and then very often with brutality by most defense buffoons (the smartest defense attorneys knew to treat victims, especially children, with kid gloves). Trauma victims generally do very well at consistently relating the major aspects of their experience of assault, and getting minor details ‘wrong’ from one telling to the next is perfectly consistent with all the accepted science of how trauma affects memory - that phenomena is explained to the jury by informational witnesses like trauma therapists.

I wouldn’t expect Dr. Ford to have spent much time prepping her testimony; if anything she might be prepped for what to expect from the process, but that I imagine she knows already having lived through the Anita Hill hearings.

I’m not surprised Kavanaugh has spent hours at the WH hunkered down with aides preparing HIS testimony - it’s always much trickier to pull off lying, and a smug bastard like he is would have to work hard to appear sincere while denying the kind of behavior that he’s alluded to and joked about publicly in the past.

[BoSoxGal]

[Big RR]

Well BSG, I will defer to your expertise here; I used to do the same with children when I prepped them for testimony, or even for in camera meetings with the judge--just let them know what to expect.

But I do think anyone appearing before committee like this has to be prepared for certain questions and how to deal with them, to be told not to answer questions that are not asked, and to generally be prepared for hours of grilling..I know when I went into Immigration with people for Green card interviews, I didn't prep their answers, but basically wanted them to know what kind of questions to expect, and I think Ford would benefit from that as well.

[BoSoxGal]

'No accident' Brett Kavanaugh's female law clerks 'looked like models', Yale professor told students

Guardian learns Amy Chua said she would advise students on their physical looks to help win post in Kavanaugh’s chambers

Stephanie Kirchgaessner
Last modified on Fri 21 Sep 2018 05.34 EDT
Guardian learns Amy Chua said she would advise students on their physical looks to help win post in Kavanaugh’s chambers

A top professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned.

Amy Chua, a Yale professor who wrote a bestselling book on parenting called Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, was known for instructing female law students who were preparing for interviews with Kavanaugh on ways they could dress to exude a “model-like” femininity to help them win a post in Kavanaugh’s chambers, according to sources.

Sign up for the US morning briefing. We’ll email you the first briefing on Monday, 24 September.
Kavanaugh is facing intense scrutiny in Washington following an allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford that he forcibly held her down and groped her while they were in high school. He has denied the allegation. The accusation has mired Kavanaugh’s confirmation in controversy, drawing parallels to allegations of sexual harassment against Justice Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill in the 1990s.

Advertisement

HSBC
Yale provided Kavanaugh with many of the judge’s clerks over the years, and Chua played an outsized role in vetting the clerks who worked for him. But the process made some students deeply uncomfortable.

One source said that in at least one case, a law student was so put off by Chua’s advice about how she needed to look, and its implications, that she decided not to pursue a clerkship with Kavanaugh, a powerful member of the judiciary who had a formal role in vetting clerks who served in the US supreme court.

In one case, Jed Rubenfeld, also an influential professor at Yale and who is married to Chua, told a prospective clerk that Kavanaugh liked a certain “look”.

“He told me, ‘You should know that Judge Kavanaugh hires women with a certain look,’” one woman told the Guardian. “He did not say what the look was and I did not ask.”

Sources who spoke to the Guardian about their experiences with Chua and Rubenfeld would only speak under the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution and damage to their future careers. Some elements of this story were first published by the Huffington Post.

[Rubenfeld] told me, 'Kavanaugh hires women with a certain look'. He did not say what the look was and I did not ask
Chua advised the same student Rubenfeld spoke to that she ought to dress in an “outgoing” way for her interview with Kavanaugh, and that the student should send Chua pictures of herself in different outfits before going to interview. The student did not send the photos.

There is no allegation that the female students who worked for Kavanaugh were chosen because of their physical appearance or that they were not qualified.

However, the remarks from Chua and Rubenfeld raise questions about why the couple believed it was important to emphasize the students’ physical appearance when discussing jobs with Kavanaugh. The couple were not known to do that in connection with other judges, sources said.

“It is possible that they were making observations but not following edicts from him,” said one student who received such instructions. “I have no reason to believe he was saying, ‘Send me the pretty ones’, but rather that he was reporting back and saying, ‘I really like so and so,’ and the way he described them led them to form certain conclusions.”

Kavanaugh is close to Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose retirement from the supreme court left an opening, and Kavanaugh was one of three judges who vetted clerks to serve in Kennedy’s chambers. His role as a so-called “feeder” judge made his clerkships among the most coveted posts for law students across the country, but especially at his alma mater, Yale.

According to one source, Chua invited a group of students that she mentored to a bar last year to catch up and discuss their plans for clerkships. The conversation turned to a high-profile #MeToo case that was emerging in the news at the time involving a well-known public figure.

The group began to talk about whether the federal judiciary would ever face similar scrutiny, and, according to a source, Chua said she did not believe it would. She told the students she had known about allegedly abusive and harassing behavior by another judge, Alex Kozinski, who was head of the ninth circuit and was forced to retire from the bench last year after more than a dozen women accused him of harassment.

Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld pictured in 2014.
Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld pictured in 2014. Photograph: Mike McGregor for the Guardian
The conversation then turned to Kozinski’s protege and good friend Kavanaugh, who one source said was a familiar name even though he had not yet been nominated to the high court. Chua allegedly told the students that it was “no accident” that Kavanaugh’s female clerks “looked like models”. Student reacted with surprise, and quickly pointed out that Chua’s own daughter was due to clerk for Kavanaugh.

A source said that Chua quickly responded, saying that her own daughter would not put up with any inappropriate behaviour.

Chua has cancelled her classes at Yale this semester and, according to her office, has been hospitalised and is not taking calls. Rubenfeld sent an email to the Yale Law School community that said his wife had been ill and in hospital and had a long period of recuperation ahead of her.

The Guardian has learned that Rubenfeld is currently the subject of an internal investigation at Yale. The investigation is focused on Rubenfeld’s conduct, particularly with female law students. Students have also raised related concerns to Yale authorities about Chua’s powerful influence in the clerkships process. The investigation was initiated before Kavanaugh was nominated by Donald Trump to serve on the high court.

Rubenfeld said in a statement to the Guardian: “In June, Yale University informed me that it would conduct what it terms an ‘informal review’ of certain allegations, but that to preserve anonymity, I was not entitled to know any specifics. As a result, I do not know what I am alleged to have said or done. I was further advised that the allegations were not of the kind that would jeopardize my position as a long-tenured member of the faculty.

This is the first we have heard claims that Chua coached students to look ‘like models’. We will look into these claims
“For some years, I have contended with personal attacks and false allegations in reaction to my writing on difficult and controversial but important topics in the law. I have reason to suspect I am now facing more of the same. While I believe strongly that universities must conduct appropriate reviews of any allegations of misconduct, I am also deeply concerned about the intensifying challenges to the most basic values of due process and free, respectful academic expression and exchange at Yale and around the country.

Advertisement

HSBC
“Nevertheless, I stand ready to engage with this process in the hope that it can be expeditiously concluded.”

In a statement, Yale Law School said it could not confirm or deny the existence of an internal investigation.

A Yale Law School official said in an emailed statement: “This is the first we have heard claims that Professor Chua coached students to look ‘like models’. We will look into these claims promptly, taking into account the fact that Professor Chua is currently unreachable due to serious illness. If true, this advice is clearly unacceptable.”

The official added: “I can assure you that we take allegations of faculty misconduct very seriously.”

Chua and her husband are towering figures at Yale and were described by one student as being the centre of gravity at the elite law school, connecting students to jobs and clerkships, and rewarding loyalty.

The couple wrote a controversial book together in 2014 called The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America. It said that a mix of feeling superior with some insecurity were two traits that led to success. It also emphasised the need for “impulse control”.

The couple have hired a well-known crisis communications expert but he did not respond to specific questions from the Guardian about Chua’s remarks or the internal investigation.

In an emailed statement, Chua told the Guardian: “For the more than 10 years I’ve known him, Judge Kavanaugh’s first and only litmus test in hiring has been excellence. He hires only the most qualified clerks, and they have been diverse as well as exceptionally talented and capable.

“There is good reason so many of them have gone on to supreme court clerkships; he only hires those who are extraordinarily qualified. As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal, he has also been an exceptional mentor to his female clerks and a champion of their careers. Among my proudest moments as a parent was the day I learned our daughter would join those ranks.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Guardian was assisted in its reporting by Elie Mystal, the executive editor of the Above the Law blog. If you have tips on this story please contact the reporter Stephanie.Kirchgaessner@theguardian.com

[liberty]

As I understand it liberals are concerned that majority conservative court would ban abortion; I don’t see it happening. And even if the court did rule against it that would just make it a state issue. All the blue states and most of the red states would keep abortion. I don’t see it disappearing it is part of the culture now.

[Big RR]

Lib--I don't think you'll see an outright overturning of Roe v Wade, but what you will see is an increasing number of restrictions upheld--from parental consent to waiting periods (especially problematic in areas where people have to travel far for an abortion and cannot afford a few days in a hotel), to requirement of local hospital privileges for doctors performing abortions (which could be a real problem in some states), perhaps even making it a crime to take women out of state to get abortions in contravention of the rules. Abortion won't be illegal, but it may be much harder to get one.

you'll see more "religious freedom" laws upheld, broader acceptance of the idiocy that a corporation can have a religious belief, an upholding of a state's/locality's right to refuse marriage licenses to same gender couples, maybe even a recognition that not all states have to recognize a same gender marriage.

And the imperial power of the presidency will grow, including immunity from prosecution or service of process while president.

And that's just for starters.

It will be the death of a thousand cuts, not a broad based attack.

[BoSoxGal]

To be clear, this isn’t about Kavanaugh’s position on Roe, which is very likely a strong willingness to find reasons to overturn it, given his very recent ruling denying a detainee immigrant her right to an abortion - a ruling that was overturned on appeal.

There is no doubt that ANY nominee Trump puts forward will have views repugnant to Democrats and many Independents; but let’s at least have a justice whose legal positions we loathe but who isn’t an accused sex offender. Surely we can find another John Roberts or even another Neil Gorsuch?

It’s not too much to ask, I think.

[Burning Petard]

I am a very unrepresentative sample of public opinion on this. I am an old geezer married for more than 50 years to the only person I have ever fucked and I was a virgin before we married. But I was part of a male adolescent culture that certainly talked and bluffed about it all and pretended to be very sexually active in conversations within that period( Boy Scouts and High School).

In spite of that narrow personal experience, I think POTUS tweet today that the lack of reporting the event to the police by the victim or her parents is evidence that it did not happen, is actually evidence that POTUS is way down on the far left end of the bell curve for normal human empathy.

The event, as generally described in the mass media, involved a party of teen agers, many from gender-separated private catholic schools, having a party in a home in a suburb of DC. The house was absent any adult supervision. Alcohol was flowing freely. The victim Was 15 YEARS OLD!. Unless she could not get home without her parents seeing bruises, blood, torn clothing, I can't imagine the victim telling her parents ANYTHING!

It has also been reported that by individual who was a student at the same school as the victim, but two years ahead of her, that the party and this incident was a topic of general conversation at the school, shortly after the incident happened.

snailgate.