Kavanaugh Hearing

What evidence suggests that most sexual assault allegations are truthful?

Don't most cases end without a conviction?

 

Maybe he can use his blackness to get on SCOTUS before trying to pull the ladder up behind him? Sorry, no, he can't pull that one off.

 

Go on offense but play defense? I think that was Will Muschamp's offensive strategy.

 

After slick willie, would that even work? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...."

 

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

 

So let me ask you this... Assume that BK didnt do it, maybe something happened to her, but it wasnt him that did it. He looses out of a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. It is also possible that he wont be able to go back to being a federal judge. So now what? What recourse does he have? This is the only crime that you are guilty until proven innocent. Rape is a horrible crime and if someone actually does it, then they can burn. But just the accusation of it should not ruin someone.

 

False sexual assault accusations are rare, and often when they did happen, the accusation crumbles under the spotlight of an investigation. I remember a rape allegation against an Arizona basketball star in the early 90s against Khalid Reeves (who lead Arizona to the '94 Final Four). He said it was consensual and that she was upset that he dumped her the next day. I think Reeves missed a game or two while police investigated, and eventually, her story fell apart. And if you want to worry about a false accusation for your son, plenty of other, more likely things to worry about, like getting hurt playing sports, in a car accident, or doing something stupid while getting drunk.

 

Red Flag

1. Defines a false allegation as one that is proven to have never occurred... not one that has with insufficient evidence to prove it did occur...

2. Even with such a standard studies have shown between 2 and 10 percent of allegations are false reports...

That's still cause for concern... It's ignoring more allegations that are likely false, simply not proven to be false... and doesn't necessarily prove that more allegations are true than false...

I believe that to be true... but this study isn't proof of that...

 

Yes, a hypothetical that used his hypothetical SON facing the same facts--b/c he posed the same hypothetical to me about my [actual] daughter in the future, though tweaking the fact pattern (31 years). I saw no reason to tweak the fact pattern, and frankly thought it was a mistake--so I corrected it to 36 years.

But he doesn't have a son to my knowledge; certainly not one old enough to be confronted with 36 year old allegations....

Again, 'bimbo' was an express reference to billy bob's 'bimbo eruptions'.

"...a bimbo erupted..." ...accidental? Coinkydinky??

Do I really need to spell these things out???

 

Just too many holes in the story or basic logical responses that lead me to not believe her.

For example. A big one for me is that she said that she left immediately after the event and walked home. If something like that happened, how would the other girls typically respond another girl just disappearing? Especially at that age. A girl just disappearing would trigger a lot of questions not only that night but subsequently from her other girlfriends. How'd you get home? Why'd you leave? Is everything ok?

Yet, no one remembers anything remarkable.....sorry but these are questions that should've been asked. Not slobbering all over her courage and Mitchell trying to link outside influences.

No one wanted to challenge her on basic questions of fact......

 

You're right, my apologies. But I think Graham's explanation for this was appropriate.

 

He's not guilty until proven innocent in a court of law. The only place where the presumption of innocence applies is the court of law. Everywhere else, people decide whether you get a presumption of innocence. Some people do not give a presumption of innocence to any person accused of a crime. I've had prospective jurors admit that during voir dire (that if you're arrested or indicted for a crime, they think you're guilty).

The mistaken identity theory simply isn't credible to me, especially after Ed Whelan's actions. If Kavanaugh didn't do it, I feel for him. But he's not losing his current job as it stands now.

 

Oh no, he cant be a federal judge, but has to go into private practice at some white shoe law firm with a bunch of prep school and Yale chums who don't give a shit about what he did when he was 17. He still gets to be rich and successful, but doesn't get to make federal laws, poor him.

 

Try re-reading my post.

 

Also, notes from watching her testimony:

I think that, at a minimum, she comes across as legitimately believing this happened to her.

I don't think it's terribly credible that a college professor with numerous advanced degrees could not figure out how to contact anyone in the Executive Branch, the FBI, or the Senate when she initially wanted to raise her concerns, and could instead only figure out how to speak with the secretary of a House member. It also seems dubious that someone with her background would be seeking (and taking) advice from random people on the beach as to how she should handle this. But as to the allegations themselves, she comes across as if she believes them.

Because some of her assertions about how it got raised seem much less credible than the substantive story itself, that aspect is made significantly more awkward by the fact that everyone else involved on her side - including her own lawyers - seem to have treated her story as little more than an opportunity to take a political hatchet swing at the nomination.

 

You can fool yourself or try to fool others. Never try to do both. You wanted to frame her as a "bimbo" so you did. You then tried to justify that decision after the fact.

 

Imagine if we applied the logic you're pushing to murder. "If you don't get a conviction, there was no murder." It's not a red flag.

 

No. Only when they accuse a Republican appointed candidate for the Supreme Court that you don’t like.

I call BS on the fact that you were immediately calling for Bill Clinton’s head after it was alleged that he had sex with an intern, and not proven. The fact that you don’t consider Monica Lewinsky to have been raped makes that very unlikely.

So since Bill Clinton had “consensual” sex with an intern he was in a position of power over, then that wouldn’t be considered rape? Would you consider a high school principal/teacher having consensual sex with an eighteen year old student to not be rape? If Kavanaugh had consensual sex with one of his law clerks, you would immediately be calling him a rapist and using it as proof against him with Ford’s accusations.

You still equate supposition to be fact, when all it is is supposition. What verifiable fact have you presented for Kavanaugh’s guilt. Any? You can’t even prove he was at a party with the woman. But statistics, right?

You present the word of the people who the victim told as being proof that Kavanaugh did it, when it is only innuendo. Anyone who was present at the actual event doesn’t remember anything like what she claimed happened. Repeating an event told to you by a person who allegedly attended the event doesn’t prove that the event actually happened, or even prove that the person actually attended the event.

 

No thanks, why would I want to undermine my own joke?