Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Cow Poke]

I still ask, what's wrong with believing that the rape probably took place, but also at the same time being honest about the impossibility of convicting Kavanaugh?

Woah, hold the bus....

A) There is no accusation of rape. It, at worst, is ATTEMPTED rape, but she claims she managed to leave the room.
2) Even that is possible, but I don't believe it's probable.
C) It's a she-said-he-said, with a very shaky she-said.

She is a political activist with an axe to grind, her lawyer is an ant-Trump political activist, "repressed memory therapy" is garbage.....

[Cow Poke]

There's no dead horse to be flogged. You are being as obstructive as Grassley and co. Why, when there remain so many unknowns, rumours, conspiracy theories, lies and outrageous hearsay floating around? Senate Democrats aren’t asking for a criminal investigation. They merely want the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background check. What with the new information on hand from Dr Ford it warrants further investigation. There’s nothing to stop the FBI from reopening or adding to their background check. Or, perhaps that exactly want you don’t want.

DiFi had this information for the entire process of the hearings on K, and she said nothing.

[Leonhard]

Nothing, as long as you have sufficient evidence for that belief to be justified.

The, I said probable, not certain beyond reasonable doubt. That's why I was careful to say that one could recognise that the rape (attempted - as Cow Poke clarifies), likely took place, while recognising that enough uncertainty exists in the case for it not to have any consequences for Kavanaugh.

I do agree with you guys that how she broached this is the critical part. But not *that* she broached it.

[Mountain Man]

I still ask, what's wrong with believing that the rape probably took place, but also at the same time being honest about the impossibility of convicting Kavanaugh?

Because Ford's story is sketchy and inconsistent and has been emphatically denied by the four people she has so far named as witnesses -- one of them a lifelong friend of Ford who has no reason to lie. It is, I think, considerably more probable that it didn't happen than that it did.

[Leonhard]

A) There is no accusation of rape. It, at worst, is ATTEMPTED rape, but she claims she managed to leave the room.

Attempted rape then.

2) Even that is possible, but I don't believe it's probable.

I believe its more plausible that it happened than that it didn't. Just as I do of any woman who reports a rape. Reasonable doubt still exists, so I don't think it can have any consequences though.

C) It's a she-said-he-said, with a very shaky she-said.

I remember reading National Review, as I do now and then to figure out what conservatives are thinking about these matters. And I saw a set of articles by one of their writers named McCarthy, who kept qualifying that her testimony was not 'credible'. Yet when I looked back in the archives and found out about rape accusations against Clinton (about rapes taking place in 1978), the same author kept qualifying the testimonies as 'very credible'.

I think its just political bias.

She is a political activist with an axe to grind, her lawyer is an ant-Trump political activist, "repressed memory therapy" is garbage.....

Originally when I was considering this case, I thought that it was repressed memory therapy stuff as well. Unfortunately whenever I looked into it, the only source of it being 'repressed memory therapy' are by conservative reporters calling it that. Very little of her actual therapy notes have been released, and there's only one line of the handful of notes that could be read that way.

It was pretty much at that point that I started posting in this thread, because honestly it seems you guys have a bad case of political bias on this one.

[Cow Poke]

It was pretty much at that point that I started posting in this thread, because honestly it seems you guys have a bad case of political bias on this one.

I suspect her motives in coming forward at this time - giving the letter to DiFi and insisting it not be made public, DiFi KNOWING about this information but not saying a word until AFTER the hearings for K... I think this whole thing is politically motivated to stop a conservative from being put on SCOTUS, because the Dems have hopes of taking the Senate and putting forth their own nominee.

It IS political, and yes, I have a bias - I don't believe we need to have liberal activist judges on SCOTUS.

[Cow Poke]

Attempted rape then.

You realize that's a HUGE difference, yes? I'm a little surprised how cavalier you were about that.

[Leonhard]

I suspect her motives in coming forward at this time - giving the letter to DiFi and insisting it not be made public, DiFi KNOWING about this information but not saying a word until AFTER the hearings for K...

The only thing that's suspicious to me is the whole thing with a hearing. That does look like someone is trying to capitalize on this. But beyond that anyone is allowed to testify as to their own experience of things. That's just the nature of things. If it can be shown to be false, its a crime of defamation, if it can be shown to be true then its the truth and someone can be convincted.

But in between these two extremes, there's an area where a claim could likely be true. Even 95% certain to be true. Yet not strong enough for conviction. Or even for any consequences.

I think this whole thing is politically motivated to stop a conservative from being put on SCOTUS, because the Dems have hopes of taking the Senate and putting forth their own nominee.

I don't believe her testimony is. I don't know about you, but I do believe that she is being honest. For better or worse, this is what she remember. And until I see evidence that it was brought about by hypnosis or whatever conservatives are claiming, then I'll take her word for it and consider it probably true.

It IS political, and yes, I have a bias - I don't believe we need to have liberal activist judges on SCOTUS.

I don't think Christine Ford is on the Supreme Court of Justice?

[Leonhard]

You realize that's a HUGE difference, yes? I'm a little surprised how cavalier you were about that.

Is there anything more I should do? Both in that post and in another I called it attempted murder, with reference to your clarification.

[Mountain Man]

I believe its more plausible that it happened than that it didn't..

What do you find plausible about it? She claims to remember being 15, and that it was definitely Kavanaugh who supposedly assaulted her, yet she remembers literally nothing else, like what year it happened, where it happened (as in she can't remember who's house it was or even what city the house was located in!), how she got to the party, how she got home, and the four people she has named as witnesses, including her lifelong friend, have all denied any knowledge of the incident. On top of that, Ford's story has been inconsistent, telling a different version of events to her therapist in 2012 than what she's telling now, and the number of people she says were at the party keeps changing.

What about any of this suggests to you that her accusation is plausible?

I don't think this is "repressed memory syndrome" or "false memories" or anything like that, I think she's just straight-up lying.

[Leonhard]

What do you find plausible about it?

Unless there's specific evidence against a claim I tend to consider it more plausible than not. Most women incur a lot of penalties for voicing rape, even in situations were it indisputably happened. This case is no different, she's gotten death threats and is under surveilance at the moment.

She claims to remember being 15, and that it was definitely Kavanaugh who supposedly assaulted her, yet she remembers literally nothing else, like what year it happened, where it happened (as in she can't remember who's house it was or even what city the house was located in!), how she got to the party, how she got home, and the four people she has named as witnesses, including her lifelong friend, have all denied any knowledge of the incident. On top of that, Ford's story has been inconsistent, telling a different version of events to her therapist in 2012 than what she's telling now, and the number of people she says were at the party keeps changing.

All the problems you're talking about, details shifting, etc... are universal hallmarks of human memory. Its why the usefulness of human witnesses is often being discussed as a big problem. The only reason we use them is because the alternative, a comprehensive surveilance society, is exponentially worse.

I think she's just straight-up lying.

You'll be in good company I imagine. That's what most people think about any woman who testifies that she's been raped.

[NorrinRadd]

Attempted rape then.



I believe its more plausible that it happened than that it didn't. Just as I do of any woman who reports a rape. Reasonable doubt still exists, so I don't think it can have any consequences though.

FWIW, HuffPo did a poll that found women are slightly more likely than men to disbelieve her (but a plurality of both sexes are unsure). Disbelief of the accuser rises with age.

This generally comports with anecdotal online interactions I've had: A couple of "senior" ladies, both of whom in their youth had various experiences that today would at the very least be considered "sexual harassment," did not find Ford's account to be credible account of "attempted rape." In their view, in the unlikely event that it happened at all, it sound more like a couple of stupid drunk teenagers messing around, then the girl getting cold feet and making up stories.

I remember reading National Review, as I do now and then to figure out what conservatives are thinking about these matters. And I saw a set of articles by one of their writers named McCarthy, who kept qualifying that her testimony was not 'credible'. Yet when I looked back in the archives and found out about rape accusations against Clinton (about rapes taking place in 1978), the same author kept qualifying the testimonies as 'very credible'.

I think its just political bias.

Was there only one allegation, or multiple? Did he have the reputation of Kavanaugh, or did he have habits that, oh, led to the creation of the term, "Bimbo eruptions"? Did the accusers omit and garble details? Did they have contemporaneous documentation of any sort, even personal journal notes?

[NorrinRadd]

Unless there's specific evidence against a claim I tend to consider it more plausible than not.

So, basically the opposite of the way things are supposed to work. Yes, I understand "presumption of innocence" technically only applies in court, but it's still a good guideline.

Most women incur a lot of penalties for voicing rape, even in situations were it indisputably happened. This case is no different, she's gotten death threats and is under surveilance at the moment.

So have Kavanaugh AND HIS WIFE. I'm not sure why those don't get as much attention.

All the problems you're talking about, details shifting, etc... are universal hallmarks of human memory. Its why the usefulness of human witnesses is often being discussed as a big problem. The only reason we use them is because the alternative, a comprehensive surveilance society, is exponentially worse.

It's also one of the reasons why there is a statute of limitations in many cases. As it happens, in MD there is not one for attempted rape, but per Dersh, the prosecution would have to somehow prove direct intent to "penetrate."

You'll be in good company I imagine. That's what most people think about any woman who testifies that she's been raped.

I doubt that.

[Leonhard]

FWIW, HuffPo did a poll that found women are slightly more likely than men to disbelieve her (but a plurality of both sexes are unsure). Disbelief of the accuser rises with age.

That comports with what I've said.

Was there only one allegation, or multiple?

Heh, when there are multiple allegations conservatives tend to claim it sounds suspicious. If there's only one its also suspicious. I guess the only time it doesn't sound suspicious is when there are no allegations.

Coming from the outside looking it, it just looks like political bias.

At any rate, I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying "She did it", I'm saying, that its likely. It doesn't mean reasonable doubt doesn't exist. Its because there's reasonable doubt I don't think any consequences can be had of this.

[Leonhard]

So, basically the opposite of the way things are supposed to work. Yes, I understand "presumption of innocence" technically only applies in court, but it's still a good guideline.

Its for the courts only. Outside you can use your own judgement. Otherwise we would have to believe that O.J Simpson is 100% innocent, because the court didn't convict him. Should you believe that various people given pardons under Obama are innocent as well?

I don't believe *that she did it*. I'm not saying *Kavanaugh is guilty*. All I'm saying is that her accusation is more likely to be true than false. I'm honestly not sure why that's a position you're not allowed to take.

So have Kavanaugh AND HIS WIFE. I'm not sure why those don't get as much attention.

You seem to be responding to my post line-by-line without taking into account context. I said that women who claim that they have been raped face negative stigma, they're treated badly. And there's no doubt that Ford is facing this, and she's intelligent enough that I believe she knew this would happen as well, and yet she chose to face it. For better or worse I do believe that's she's reporting what she believes happened.

Its tragic that Kavanaugh is treated in a bad way as well. But its irrelevant when you're looking at Ford's motivations. I think its rather hard to make the case that she doesn't believe what she's saying.

The only reasonable doubt that can be had is about whether her memory is the soundness of it. Was it Kavanaugh, etc... For instance if it was found that repressed memory therapy had recovered the memory, then I'd agree with Cow Poke that the memory would be highly dubious. As it is, a thirty year old memory, its practically inadmissable as court evidence.

It's also one of the reasons why there is a statute of limitations in many cases. As it happens, in MD there is not one for attempted rape, but per Dersh, the prosecution would have to somehow prove direct intent to "penetrate."

That seems a dumb rule made to avoid frat boys going to jail for something they ought to go to jail for. But that's another issue.

I doubt that.

You'd be in good company I think on this forum. But only a very small proportion of women accuse men false of rape. And most women who are raped report not being believed.