Kavanaugh Hearing

You know I appreciate skepticism mad, but being 100% of something is the opposite of skepticism. If we can't be sure this happened because there is no "proof", how could we possibly be sure it didn't happen without "proof"?

 

Case in point. Perfect example of partisanship. Steve purports to tell me what I'd have done, and of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's wrong. By the way, Monica Lewinsky wasn't sexually assaulted. Unlike you, Steve, I don't believe women only when it's politically convenient.

 

I guess I'm not sure why that fact would be interesting if there wasn't a political angle behind it.

 

How does one prove they are innocent of fabricated charges that did not occur 36 years ago? Is this the old prove a negative?

 

Not to mention I wouldn't say I am 100% certain about people I have known for years let alone someone I had never heard of until a few months ago and never met. You never know what's behind people's motives absolutely.

 

That proves what? She consistently believes Kavanaugh raped her? That much is obvious. What about a statement from even one of the alleged attendees that Kavanugh was at the party? Oh. She don’t have that.

But the friend who attended the party saying she believes her while simultaneously saying she doesn’t recall being at a party with Kavanugh has to be a smoking gun, right? Instead of being a nice way of not throwing your friend under the bus while saying I don’t remember what she said happened actually happening.

It’s a Rorschach’s card where you see what you want to see in the testimony.

 

Excuse? Please. I've never once said that I thought he was guilty. Because I don't know. What I've said for 170 pages there should be an investigation. And today I've said she was credible. Because she was.

And for 170 pages all the right has said on here is "there's no corroboration" but the one guy who can corroborate it isn't called to testify?

Most rapes are "he said she said" and there are plenty of convictions without corroboration. Here she claims there was a witness (whether it was last week or last century) and he's sitting in a hotel at a Delaware beach.

If I were Kavanaugh AND I was innocent, I'd stop the process right now and DEMAND an investigation immediately to clear my good name, as much for my wife, kids and family, and for my personal and community reputation as for a seat on the court. Instead, he goes the other way and claims that he was almost Puritan in HS when others have said he was a big partier who was often drunk and when he was, belligerent. So now he gets to go on TV in front of the whole country and call them all liars. He's left himself no room.

 

If I was Kavanaugh, I would go on the offensive at this point, with regard to the allegations, not the accuser. Playing it safe and sort of defensive (as he came off in the Fox interview) will probably cost him the nod. I think he's done, but he can still help himself here if he comes out swinging.

 

You're acting as though all of these cases have security cameras...

Definitely an exceptional case, as opposed to a typical case...

 

I wasn't referring to her specifically--it was a hypothetical, and I was deliberately infusing Billy bob's* lingo--

When women would pop up out of the wood work, to accuse billy bob of raping them, assaulting them, groping them, what have you, he would refer to them as BIMBO ERUPTIONS. Hence:

"...If some bimbo erupted from YOUR SON'S past, 36 years ago..."​

NB: To the uninitiated...Billy bob = Bill Clinton.

Golly gee....I wonder where you stood when credible AND CONTEMPORANEOUS allegations were levied against Billy bob?

Oh I'm so sure you were all....

"I can't believe he refers to them as bimbos....whaaaaa...."

LOL!

 

Exactly. You can't be. That's why I think the rational starting place should be less than 100% certainty for either claim, with every bit of new evidence nudging one's certainty in one direction or the other.

 

But it is easy to make someone waste time and money to dis-prove it. Potentially causing them their job or other pain/discomfort.

 

Nice move, but you stated that you will not worry. My point is that you better worry.

Justice being served doesn't repay legal fees. It doesn't restore a lost semester in college. It doesn't restore things to the way they were before she decided to lie and make a false accusation against him.

 

Is it an exceptional case? Can you show me the data on how often innocent men are convicted of sex crimes?

 

A hypothetical that used 36 years randomly?

You are framing her as a bimbo. Either you are trying to do it to yourself to make it easier to dismiss her or you are trying to do it to others to frame the debate. You insulted her intelligence as a framing device.

 

And that's certainly wrong. She should be made to account for it.

I'm not worried. The data shows that it is extremely unlikely. It's more likely my son is sexually abused and does not report it than my son is falsely accused.

I'm sorry for your nephew. She should suffer serious consequences for it.

 

How can I find data on innocent men being convicted of sexual assaults?

I'd be limited to cases where women admit after the fact, that they were lying...

Apart from that, if an innocent man is convicted of sexual assault... as far as you or I know, he's guilty...

 

What kind of payoff is this ? wonder how much money is in the envelope

 

Try looking. Until then, the data indicates that it's not a serious threat. It would be like me fearing being struck by lightning every time I go outside.

 

He needs to channel some of Thomas's indignation.

Probably needs to acknowledge that she seems to legitimately believe that this happened to her (because I think she does), but have some good outrage at the idea that he would ever do such a thing, and hurt at the idea that someone would believe him capable of it. Not just repeat "I have never done anything of the sort" in his Kermit the Frog voice.