#WhyIDidntReport: Victims Answer President Donald Trump | The Last Word | MSNBC

SSgt Joseph Baptist - Since you still have me blocked I can't tag you in a response you directed at me...

I never said I DON'T KNOW WHAT DID OR DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT NIGHT! Please show me where I said he probably sexually assaulted me? I never said that. I said I can't remember but I don't know because of the gap in my memory that I still haven't retained almost 10 years later. BUT I do know that for the entire 4 1/2 years I was in that unit he tried to get in my pants - even though he was married most of the time -and he continually turned me down. Couple that with the time in Iraq when he asked me if he could come in on night shift when I worked to do his fingerprints for a clearance packet I said sure. He said he only trusted me to get it right. He came in and while I'm trying to do his fingerprints, he starts to bump his groin against my rear. I stop and tell him to stop doing that. He laughs and he does it again. I said stop doing that. He laughs and he does it again - and I turn to him and say "If you don't stop doing that I'll get the S3 guys who are right on the other side of that wall to come in here." He gets offended with ME and says "I was just joking." That's not a joke. That's not funny and I guarantee none of my male coworkers EVER dealt with that in that unit.

So I can think that maybe he did something to me when I blacked out but I can't prove it which is why I never reported anything. Are you so dense that you can't read English? Or are you so against anything I post that you just see my name and ignore what I write? Again I never reported it BECAUSE I didn't have any proof and therefore knew what would happen and IF I had proof, I probably wouldn't have because I saw what happened to OTHER females who did report. This was before SHARP when EO handled sexual assault. I was the alternate BN EO and company EO - and remember when the BN EO had a case where the same female soldier had made at least two reports during the second deployment and all I heard people do in the unit was talk shit and say "oh maybe she shouldn't have been alone on the bus" or "Oh she is just making it up - she's kind of a slut." FFS I even somehow had rumors about me screwing these guys in one company because I hung out with them - because heterosexual males and females can never just be friends. We just can't control our raging hormones I guess (eye roll). So I used sarcasm to deflect that bs.

So there you go there are the details of that "friend" who may or may not have taken advantage of me at my weakest moment. You say I'm part of the problem - no YOU are part of the problem. Every damn post on this topic you react the same and it's people like you who cause toxic environments for people not to report. Thank goodness you are no longer in the military.

Also - Baptis - in reply to the following post

"are you saying SFC Fuerhoff has to go into graphic detail in order to be believed?"
No, I am not. And I really don't know how far up your ass you had to reach to get that ridiculous and unsupported idea - but you dure spend a lot of time up there. But thanks for not only bringing your own interpretation to my words, but adding a whole bunch of stuff that just isn't there. --- That is pretty much what you implied that you said I was making up a rape accusation when I blacked out. Which I didn't. Ever. I provided you with the details though. You sure spend a lot of time up YOUR ass though.

"If she had no reason to believe even remotely that something happened, she wouldn't be airing suppositions." She described a non-event, where her claim to abuse is based solely on the fact that she drank too much and blacked out when a guy was around, but she seems to think that just because she put herself into a position where something bad could have happened, it must have - in her words: "He probably took advantage of me when I got black out drunk with him (not on purpose and wasn't my plan) but I don't know. I can't prove anything. He claims nothing happened but that was 2009 and I still don't remember anything between blacking out and waking up puking." ---- I did not describe a "non-event' in ANY case that I described. Ata ll. I didn't put myself in any position. This was someone I thought I could trust. I was there as a friend because he said he was going through a divorce and needed someone to talk to. I didn't know his plan was to get me drunk - and the last thing I remember is I was saying this is my last one and he filled it as full as he could. I said he probably did but I don't know!!! I did not plan to get drunk. I was trying to be helpful and listen to someone who claimed to be in need. But of course you're the kind of person to turn it around on me. Why wouldn't you? I gave you background on why I thought he could have tried something. Go read it.

Read her words. Now read them again. Put your finger ont he part where she gives any indication that something sexual happened - whether consensual or nonconsensual.

Would it be "graphic detail" for her to say "there was evidence that we had had sex" if that was what had happened? No, that would be a pretty tame way to put it. --- I gave you more details. But you ignore where I said why I didn't report.

You and your similarly reading comporehension challeneged friend, SSG Bautista are unhappy with me for pointing out that Fuerhoff, who presents herself as an expert in these matters, is making a claim that she was sexually assaulted, based on, according to her own words, not knowing that she wasn't. That's not even up to the "he said - she said" standard, that is an presumption of guilt for a guy without any evidence of anything (criminal or not) even happening. And that is a huge problem, because bullshit like that adds to the number of false claims, which undermines the credibility of actual victims. --- YOU are the one who is "reading comprehension challenged." I NEVER SAID I AM AN EXPERT!! Stop putting words in my mouth you incorrigible prick. I said that I have experience with sexual assault as a SARC and my own experiences with it.

What part of I DIDN'T REPORT BECAUSE I BLACKED OUT AND HAD NO EVIDENCE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?! JFC you are the most ignorant person I have ever communicated with in my life. I never ever accused him to CID or to EO or anyone of anything. I fully admit I don't know if anything happened but that SOMETHING could have happened based on the way he acted toward me in the past before that. Hell he even got mad that in garrison I hooked up with one of his SINGLE friends! Why did he get mad? Because I never gave him a chance because I don't screw married guys - and he said "Well I have always wanted to know what it's like to sleep with a white girl and you seem clean." I blocked him on yahoo chat after that - and I should have after the incident of groping me but I didn't. I should have never let him come to my barracks room after that but he apologized and seemed sincere. But he wasn't. In hindsight of what I can remember, flags were there. But I' then was a good hearted person who helps out people even when they fuck me over. Not anymore though.

Hopefully you can overcome your reading comprehension issue in this. Probably not. It's hard to hear or read with your head so far up your own ass.

You certainly sound like one. But don't sell yourself short. You've already sunk to incredible levels of incivility.

MSgt Dale Johnson you nailed it.

SPC Erich Guenther - He didn't misquote him. The letter he wrote to her lawyers is in the link. The person in the article never said it was the Senate's job to ask the FBI to investigate - he said the President can ask but probably won't.

I know exactly what constitutes a background check. But the checks for SCOTUS nominees isn't the same as for a security clearance background check. It IS much more indepth and more scrutinized than even a TS clearance check. No one is asking the FBI to recreate a crime scene or search for forensic evidence. No one is asking them to conduct a criminal investigation. It's being asked to look further into this allegation as part of the background check - which has been done before it seems.

You don't believe the source because he doesn't agree with your view. I'm sure that nothing like this has come up in a SCOTUS nomination before.

People can say it's all political - which the Democrats are using it as a political tool yes. Ford - no. If this was purely political - why didn't Gorusch get any accusations like this thrown out at him? You'd think if there was some big Democrat conspiracy why wouldn't they do this to derail him?

In the PBS link: "Millions of Americans with security clearances or government jobs are asked probing questions about their loyalty, reliability and character in FBI background checks. But for Supreme Court contenders, the inquiry goes far deeper.

Justice Anthony Kennedy sat through 10-plus hours of FBI interviews — and a three-hour session with the attorney general and White House counsel in which all “conceivable no-holds-barred questions were asked,” according to a memorandum archived in the Reagan Library."

You're telling me the FBI isn't more indepth with these when he got 10 hours of interviews from them? It makes total sense that a SCOTUS nominee would have a far more indepth background investigation than someone getting a TS or any clearance.

"Among the questions Kennedy was asked: Have you ever engaged in kinky sex? Did you shoplift as a kid? What about any associations with groups like the Klu Klux Klan? Ever abuse a girlfriend? Engage in cruelty to animals? And tell us about sex in college: How often, how many women, and did you ever contract a venereal disease?

Typically, such a deep dive doesn’t take place until the “short list” has been winnowed to a few candidates being seriously considered. Some presidents keep a close hold on the names, wary of allowing opponents to start building a case against them. Others have floated potential names through the media to try to gauge the public’s reaction."

So you don't think Kavanaugh wasn't asked about this kind of stuff? Of course he said no because he knew there was no proof. And no one in their right mind is going to admit to it when there isn't proof of it.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - There were no accusations or stalling tactics against Gorsuch because the Democrats were keeping count and decided he had a pass since he did not represent a swing vote, instead in the Democrats mind he was a restoration of right vs left decision making. They are raising all this hell and stalling Cavanaugh because the Democrats feel he will tilt the court in favor of the right. How on earth the Democrats have those extensive psychic powers to predict that he will never change his opinions and what he will rule in the future........still unknown. His rulings in the past have changed over time and he even stated in his confirmation hearings his views on Roe vs Wade changed over time........fell on deaf ears.
Lets say he never changes his opinions, what about other members of the court changing theirs over time which has happened repeatedly in the past changing the balance (but no political party could intervene). Did the country fall apart or go to hell in a hand basket?
Nope. Democratic base pushing the Democratic Party says this nomination cannot go through not because he is unqualified on a judicial basis but because he is unqualified on a idealogical basis. This whole thing is a circus and will achieve absolutely nothing in the end but destroy peoples reputations and defile the alleged victim in the public's eyes. Nothing positive is going to come out of it for either side. We are going through it because a few on the left view Supreme Court appointments as a score card on who is winning control of our society. The reality is nothing they have done in the past from Robert Bork to Anita Hill has advanced their cause one bit but it has caused a lot of collateral damage with peoples reputations, confidence in our government to perform, and the ability of left vs right to compromise on other issues. Second FBI background investigation after Anita Hill resulted in a large delay but changed no facts. Precisely why they do not want to repeat the waste of time here.

SPC Erich Guenther equality has existed for at least 40 years for most groups of people. People these days that scream about equality don’t want to be treated equally, they want to be treated in a manner that puts them on a pedestal above everyone else.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - False accusations are very common. In my 31 year law enforcement career, I investigated or supervised the investigation of many sex crimes. My experience is that nearly 50% of allegations were proven false. I recently spoke to several retired sex crime investigators who investigated both juvenile and adult sex crimes. They all agreed with my numbers, one juvenile sex crime Investgator said he had a 90 % false reporting level. There was a recent book out that said on the national level, the rate of false reports is roughly 40%.

To say that people don’t lie about sex crimes is completely false.

I can concede that there will never be evidence. However, the political response to the allegations stains this nomination. Get a new one and move on.

SSG Jessica Bautista - Are you prepared for EVERY Nominee for EVERY political office from EVERY political party to be denied appointment by the same standard. I very much believe that there are those on both sides who ABSOLUTELY believe the ends justify the means. If you don't think so....

Excerpt from the link:
"Even though Reid made a slanderous statement that Romney had in fact paid not taxes, without mentioning anything about his Bain source or skepticism, he cannot be sued for that particular statement. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states that members of Congress shall "be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The only exceptions to this rule are for treason, felonies and "breach of the peace."

After his floor speech, Reid made the claim again, except this time he again cited his " extremely credible source" for the accusation. So when Reid directly accused Romney of being a tax dodge, he did so from the safety of the Senate floor. Outside the protection of legislative immunity, Romney was only possibly a tax dodge. Not only does Reid not think he did anything wrong, he's actually proud that his lies might have helped cost Romney the election."

Note: The Washington Post's fact checker gave Reid " 4 Pinocchios" for his claims. PolitiFact gave the claim a " pants on fire" rating.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harry-reid-is-proud-he-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes

SPC Mark Huddleston You're right, because if that were true, the women Trump has been accused of assaulting and harassing would have had justice decades ago. So I see your BS and I raise WTF.

SSgt Joseph Baptist No, you interpret it in certain ways. Unless you've somehow become clairvoyant, you don't know why people decide to receive a settlement.