I was going to go with "I'm sure if someone told your boss that you raped them in 1993, and you knew it was untrue but had no way to definitively prove or disprove that claim, you would feel totally satisfied when you got fired that, 'Well, statistically speaking, her claim was more likely than not true. So that was enough, in my opinion, to fire me.'" But this works too.
OMG, she eats organic food, drives a hybrid, and is chatty. Well, clearly she wasn't assaulted. Absurd.
If that intern talked to a therapist and his wife about it six years ago with notes proving it, I would be inclined to believe him. If he had multiple friends come forward and say that he talked to them about it over a year before making the allegation, I'd be inclined to believe it. I don't believe anyone would spend six years developing a conspiracy. You're glossing over those important details.
Basically, your argument is, "Disbelieve women because they could get any of us if they wanted." That's a pathetic argument and sentiment.
I'm responding to a post suggesting that the only reasonable position is to believe a rape allegation because of the fact, in and of itself, that it was vague and belatedly reported. He seemed to suggest that to be true as a general proposition, and it's absurd.
I'm making it in response to an argument that consists of literally nothing more than the ipse dixitism that an accusation is probably true because an accusation was made. I think it's fair to note what that standard would mean in practice if we actually based decisions of any importance on it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I took his post as him addressing certain arguments that are made against her and pointing out why they're weak. I didn't take him as saying that if those things are present, it means the allegation is infallible.
I can agree to that extent. If a random person came forward with an allegation and no support, it wouldn't be sufficient to me just because they were acting consistently with how a victim acts. It's unfortunate, but you need some sort of corroboration.
This isn't a court of law. This is a job interview. It would be enough for me not to hire you. Kavanaugh isn't being deprived of his freedom. He's not even going to lose his life tenure. He'll just lose his promotion. There is no presumption of innocence. There is no beyond a reasonable doubt standard. There are no rules of evidence. This isn't a criminal trial.
That's certainly true for some. That's what inspired #metoo. Thank you for pointing that out. We could also call it #boyswillbeboys, #hewasateen, #shewaslutty, #shebroughtitonherself . . . I'll just stop there.
Has the therapist confirmed the "notes" under oath yet? Right now all we have is a woman and a claim with a "doctors note" and an attorney......and a press handler and a TON of political motives. Until sworn statements start being made, there is nothing
I think there is something significant to what Whelan did. Somebody fed him the information. The members of the Judiciary Committee apparently know who the fourth person is (who has not come forward). He had that information. I would assume that the White House and Kavanaugh had it too. He either got that information from the White House/Kavanaugh or from the Committee or both. I'll tell you this much, Orrin Hatch is getting a lot of heat because it looks like he and his staffers might have been involved. However, I wonder where he got the information on Chris Garrett.
Based on him saying that people frequently confused them for one another in high school, I suspect Whelan got that from a Georgetown Prep or Holton Arms alum, who are not exactly in short supply in DC (or even in conservative commentator circles more specifically). If you assume that Erickson actually knew anything as he suggests he did, one or more Holton Arms alumnae seems to be the leading contender. (Interesting side note: Garrett signed the Georgetown Prep alumni letter of support for Kavanaugh when he was nominated)
Republicans want outside counsel. If I'm Dr. Blasey, I dig in on that. No outside counsel. If you want to ask nasty questions, you take the political blowback.
No, disbelieve THIS woman, because she has made an allegation that she so far, refuses to back up with even a time and place of it's occurrence, much less any actual evidence that it happened. Diane Feinstein and the Dems have had weeks to look into this, find these witnesses, and the therapist notes. The fact that nothing was done until after the hearing tells us a lot about motive here.
So lets get this straight, Kavanaugh can be called a teenage rapist alcoholic but pointing out that Ford enjoyed the party seen in the 80's is slut shaming?
