SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Day]

His name was in fact in several articles including dailybeast and others in 2012 as Romney's potential pick I've seen the same "defense" on twitterz

[shukudai]

I'll just say you are doing a lot of victim blaming, whataboutism, but you are sincere and trying. I cant recommend enough that you check out those kavanaugh podcasts, especially the first 2 of them (the others are just icing on the cake but the real scandals are in the first 2). I'd really love to see what you think of this guy after his career is laid out to you. Think about it, how much do you really know? Some biased senators said hes overly qualified, others say they're worried he'll do things they dont politically want. I concur it's hard to see through the smear, but there are plenty of places you can go to learn more without having to have a law degree to keep up with what's going on. Plus, they give you sources! So you know hes not talking out of his ass like Kavanaugh is when he says Roe v Wade is "settled law".

You're trying hard to excuse Republicans here, but all you have to do is open a scotus nomination history book to see how they're not acting in good faith here. This is literally a reenactment of 1991, only this time people are more aware of sexual assault in our society. And again, the only ones delaying here are Republicans because they know how bad they got roasted last time this situation happened.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Thanks for taking the time to reply, and giving me the benefit of the doubt in being sincere.

What you say makes me think basically "Whoever wins gets to write history." I can definitely see things I've said as victim blaming. Unless it's false, in which case I'm correct. Like I said in a post, I believe 95% of accusations end up being true, and 5% are false. I've got plenty of doubt in this case, it could very well be 100% true, I can see that, and I can see it has a very high chance of being true. But likewise, I can see that Kavanaugh could be true too, that's definitely a real possibility. So I'm trying to examine everything I can, on both sides. The problem with having two "heroic" figures pointing the finger at the other is that if it turns out one of the heroic figures really was lying, it shatters the foundations of what you believe. There's millions of decent guys, who've never done a bad thing, have been actual boyscouts, unsullied records, and you start to doubt each of them, despite all their good actions and deeds... what are they hiding? Do you have to doubt them all now? There's also women who have done some absolutely crazy shit, and no one would ever even think to associate it with them, do I have to doubt them all if she's lying? I'll flat out admit, I'm generally a more naive person, I like to believe that people are decent and sincere, but there's mountains of evidence that people will lie in situations like these, and point blank, I really don't know who or what to believe, I just try to apply logic as best I can.

As for how much I really know, in terms of Kavanaugh, politically/judigically? Everyone's biased. Some think he's great, some say he's obviously a republican operative. I've listened to both Ben Shapiro and David Pakman talk about Kavanaugh, and I find Shapiro's arguments better. I like his take on the "settled law" comment, basically that since Robert Bork's nomination, Supreme Court nominees avoid giving their opinion on certain subjects, like Roe v Wade. This seems REALLY bad, because we *want* to know what these nominees opinions are, but the second you hear a nominee take either a moderate conservative or leftist view on say, Roe v Wade, they lose the nomination. In my mind, this is like the recent gay wedding cake thing. Do I think gay people should be denied whatever wedding cake they want, on the grounds that they're gay? Fuck no, that seems really stupid to me, they've got the same rights we do. But we also have freedom of religion, and I believe in that as well, so now I'm in between a rock and a hard place: Does one person's rights trump another person's rights? Are the religious people just bigots and hiding behind religion, or are they just literally religious people trying to adhere to their religion? I'm pretty sure picking either side of that argument would invalidate any Supreme Court nominee, so they don't say shit. I also have a lot of trust in Ben Shapiro, so when I hear him say he has doubts Kavanaugh would overturn Roe v Wade given the chance, I put a lot of stock into it.

I'm going to disagree that I'm trying to excuse the Republicans. 1991 and Clarence Thomas? Why not go back to 87, and Robert Bork? Take a look at the Wikipedia page for that nomination process, at least for a general overview. I don't agree with your premise the Republicans are the one's delaying. They're aware that there will be a backlash, and thus why they're offering an open or closed hearing, willing to fly people out to her home, etc. They can subpoena her, that's within their right too, but that'd also be a giant backlash. Republicans are fucked if they push for the vote, and win, and they're fucked if they are nice, so why not just push for the vote, then win the vote as they have the power to do so. I think both sides are damned if they do, damned if they don't, the type of "a plague on both your houses" thing, people don't care and end up hating politics even more. It drives me nuts, because I vacillate both ways, I don't want the winner to write history, I want the truth, and I can argue for both sides.

I do want to talk about bias here as well. I'll give the Thomas Smith thing a listen, but like I said, I think he got rekt by Sargon in his debate from I believe last year's Mythcon, he was abysmal, and I've also seen him on some pretty leftist-SJW group calls being very SJW/intersectional, so I don't put a lot of faith in his logic and ideology to say the least, but I also believe he's sincere in those things. And, because this is BG and y'all are XI players, I should be open about my bias as well, especially since BG loves the old dramaz, I did the whole serious relationship thing with a chick from in game, towards the end of XI, start of 2.0. At some point near the end of the relationship, suddenly all my online friends barely said a word to me, people who talked to me every day acted as if I didn't exist, etc. Turned out the girl was telling people I emotionally abused her. Then collecting rewards. Then saying I physically abused her. Then collected some more rewards. Then it was sexual abuse, basically rape. Like I said, I'm a more naive person. She ended up with three separate boyfriends, two of whom I knew and were royally pissed she was dating someone who was physically and sexually abusive, and were more than happy to do what they could which included cheating (it's not really cheating, y'know, if she's someone who's abusive, and can't get away), and giving her thousands and thousands of dollars. When I found out, I made sure to take every iota of proof I had, because if people who knew me instantly turned on me based on accusations, and something serious happened, I wanted to be able to turn around and go "Can you explain all of this evidence?" Nothing serious ever came of it on my end, but she got obliterated socially a few months later because she got caught, repeatedly, doing awful things, and people dug into it. But I'll never forget that weird period of time where everyone stopped talking to me and gave me the cold shoulder out of no where. Some people are sick and fucked up, and because of my experience, that makes me concerned for the 5% of people who get a finger pointed at them falsely - because it does happen, and when it does, it looks damn near identical to the 95% who aren't making false accusations. That's how people like Kavanaugh get away with things (if HE is the liar) and how people like Ford get away with things (if SHES the liar).

I'm definitely a person who's been more red pilled over the last two years, but sadly I still have some leftist beliefs, and I've picked up a few conservative ones and that kind of ostracizes me from both sides. It's also had a weird side effect, when it comes to comedy. Things I used to be able to laugh at, from like, late night hosts are significantly less funny, and I often see them as unnecessarily cruel or flat out slander and smear bullshit. I can also find right-wing comedy more funny as well, but they also veer into the unnecessarily cruel and defamatory areas as well and that shit isn't funny either. This is a weird timeline to exist in.

[Zealot]

I mean if it's me and it's 30 years post-assault, and then suddenly I start seeing this guy's name pop up as a potential Supreme Court nominee, I'd probably have to talk to a therapist about it because damn that's some harsh "life isn't fair" shit.

[kuronosan]

I mean if it's me and it's 30 years post-assault, and then suddenly I start seeing this guy's name pop up as a potential Supreme Court nominee, I'd probably have to talk to a therapist about it because damn that's some harsh "life isn't fair" shit.

No unfortunately it means you're politically motivated.

[Salodin]

I've seen a "defense" to this. I guess the theory is that Democrats have had this percolating in the political Keurig since 2012 because of Mitt Romney running for office.

See, Romney had floated Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS recommendation during his campaign, back when Scalia and Ginsburg were facing retirement rumors. Incidentally this is the same year she reported this to her psychiatrist.

Logically, this means that Diane Feinstein and Lisa Banks have been preparing a smear campaign against Kavanaugh as a contingency plan for Romney's election.

I mean, if you already believe the vast Deep State conspiracy to begin with, this isn't all that much of a stretch to you.

I cant wait to hear this from my aunt in law. Cant fucking wait...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Tymon]

Some people are sick and fucked up, and because of my experience, that makes me concerned for the 5% of people who get a finger pointed at them falsely - because it does happen, and when it does, it looks damn near identical to the 95% who aren't making false accusations. That's how people like Kavanaugh get away with things (if HE is the liar) and how people like Ford get away with things (if SHES the liar).

I think where you're making a mistake here is that you seem to be implying that we should crucify Kavanaugh right here and now and abandon the process.

I don't think anyone here is saying that at all, and I certainly haven't (aside from the extreme fringe left) seen anyone calling for it that's actually a part of the process. Ford wants an investigation. Democrats want an investigation. The only people who seem to not want an investigation are Republicans.

If this really just came down to making sure that accusations are treated fairly and both the victim and the accused are given opportunities to assert their respective honesty and innocence, then you have all of the opportunities laid out on the table.

[Tymon]

I cant wait to hear this from my aunt in law. Cant fucking wait...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

It's a win-win conspiracy. Even if he turns out to be a rapist, then Feinstein sat on proof for 6 years for political purposes. Jeez what a monster.

[Zealot]

I'm definitely a person who's been more red pilled over the last two years, but sadly I still have some leftist beliefs, and I've picked up a few conservative ones and that kind of ostracizes me from both sides. It's also had a weird side effect, when it comes to comedy. Things I used to be able to laugh at, from like, late night hosts are significantly less funny, and I often see them as unnecessarily cruel or flat out slander and smear bullshit. I can also find right-wing comedy more funny as well, but they also veer into the unnecessarily cruel and defamatory areas as well and that shit isn't funny either. This is a weird timeline to exist in.

I just want to address this point because comedy is something I care deeply about.

It's completely true that you can find more humor in things that make fun of stuff you don't like, but good comics will do sets about things either everyone can already relate to or things they can explain during their piece succinctly and clearly enough that the punchline becomes accessible. Comics who get their jokes at the expense of alienating large swaths of the potential audience are practicing, I wouldn't necessarily say cruel and defamatory, but more like cheap and easy humor. Knowing your audience is 100% a real concern but if that means you just keep going back to the same well for every performance, then what you're giving people is fast food comedy. Really, that's why most of that kind of thing comes from people who just make jokes on Twitter or host late night shows that are on every evening - they're going for whatever is the quickest way to engage the audience they already have.

Anyway the point is that comedy is a rich and satisfying smorgasbord and there are many delightful options out there for it, so don't get discouraged.

[shukudai]

No, you don't ask questions like that.

You talk to them about their story, corroborate the evidence, talk to her psychiatrist, and gauge her trustworthiness accordingly.

Why did it take Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein stories decades to come out?

Maybe that should be your first question before you get out of your armchair investigation office.

I think what you just said is self-contradictory.

"No, you don't ask questions like that" followed by "You talk to them about their story, corroborate the evidence, talk to her psychiatrist, and gauge her trustworthiness accordingly."

You said it in that line right there, "You talk to them about their story." I'm not coming at this from an ideological view point. Asking "Why did you wait so long?" isn't an A-HA! Gotcha, you liar! It's a sincere question. I want to know why a specific person waited so long. There are a lot of reasons she could've waited, no? Let's list a few:

- It could've been that she didn't believe she would be taken seriously, and that she would be victim blamed.
- It could've been that she didn't even feel it was a crime at the time, it was 1981 or 1982? Boys just did stupid shit, it scared the crap out of me, and I went on with my life.
- It was at a party, no? People involved could've been drunk, and all the shit that comes with that. That's a reason.
- It could've been that she was terrified to tell her husband.
- It could've been that she believed it was her fault.
- It could've been that she blacked it out for years. That's not a joke, that can really happen.
- It could've been that she tried to put it behind her, her choice, and turns out years later that she wasn't able to put it behind her, and it took that long.

It could be a mix of those things, or things I haven't thought or don't know about. So yes, you talk to them about their story, those are the questions you ask. Yes, your corroborate the evidence (though there's precious little of that, given that it was 36 years ago, that's going to be insanely tough for even the best investigators in the world I would think). I do believe they should talk to her psychiatrist, and we would want investigators to look at the psychiatrists note. https://twitter.com/NicoletteGlazer/...10095093932032 is a tweet about her mentioning it to her psychiatrist, but not naming him, but also previously went to the Washington Post. That lends credibility to her story, and I'd like to hear more details about that, as she didn't feel it was OK to name him to her psychiatrist, but was willing to name him to the Washington Post? I don't think it's all black and white, I don't think we have all the details, and those are things I think the committee would like to know, when gauging her trustworthiness.

Why did it take so long for everyone you mentioned? Seriously bad dudes, in positions of power. I'm not even remotely close to believing "Ah, these horrible shit bag men in power abused the fuck out of it, therefore all men in positions of power are horrible shitbags." That crap doesn't fly with me. I'd argue differently, I'd argue that men in positions of immense power should be looked at more carefully and in depth, because we know these things happen, but I don't think it's 90% of men in positions of power who do this, or 50%. If I had to guess, maybe 10-15% of them? I could be wrong, it could be a very high percent. I do not give up on being allowed to make my own judgements, and frankly, I end up playing devil's advocate and being undecided or uncertain a lot of the time.

[kuronosan]

Then I screwed up the context of my post.

You're presuming she hasn't already told her psychiatrist all of this. She need not answer those questions to anyone else except investigators.

Certainly not to the point where she is receiving death threats.

[Salodin]

It took the FBI 3 days to investigate anita hills claim. If they just did that from the start they'd be done by now lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

I really give no fucks about Kavanaugh if I'm being honest, I'm just calling this what it is, 36 year old allegation meant to do one thing only here, and if you allow this to derail the nom look forward to this kind of thing every single nomination, from both repubs and dems.

[shukudai]

I'll go down the list.

-They offered a hearing. That's great. She agreed to show up to a hearing. That's great too. Now they're working out the details. She is determined to testify next week, Republicans want it on monday even though they cant give a good reason for it. She is not a politician, shes a university professor. She needs time to prepare on top of making sure her family is safe from her new spotlight. Incase you didn't know, reporting says they had to leave their home cause of threats. Aside from this, what's the problem here? I think we can both agree shes being reasonable when she says she'll testify next week but not on monday.

-Here is where our big bad faith discussion comes in. There is no disagreement on the FBI investigating, Republicans just dont want to do it cause, at best, it does nothing for them or at worst destroys their chances of getting Kavanaugh through. There is no upside for them, so politically why do it? In 1991, when Justice Thomas was up for nomination, after the FBI did their investigation into him Anita Hill accused him of sexual impropriety (might be work place related but I'm not sure). Some of these same Republicans, including the head of this very committee, had the FBI investigate the new claim. It took 3 days, they did their hearing, and moved on. The precedent is for the FBI to investigate. To retort to your "well dems and reps have investigstors", no one wants a biased investigator being paid to come up with a story. The closest well get to non partisanship on what the facts are is to have the FBI investigate. Full stop. The FBI didn't find out about this because she told no one except a therapist (who has dated notes), her husband, and recently some friends. Do you really find it odd that a woman didnt share with many people her attempted rape? It's not odd at all, just fyi.

- You are correct, we will never know without a shadow of a doubt whether he did this or not. But it speaks to his character. How many other woman might have a similar story but are too scared to speak up after seeing how people treated Hill or Fords? No one is jailing this guy for a crime based on he said she said, we just dont want a rapist on the court. Her allegations are very credible, and the defense against it has been quite lacking.

-just cause we cant take politics out of this doesn't mean we can think critically of how best to proceed. What excuse is there for the FBI to not investigate this claim when they've already done so in this same situation before? Why is there a rush to get this done on Monday when these same Republicans had no problem holding a seat open for over a year? You dont have to answer that, we both know they're acting in bad faith on that part.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

- I think the dates/timing is because the Republicans want to get this done with before the elections. I think the Democrats would like to stretch it past the elections. Regardless of truth, that's a political move by both sides. I can view it as "Republicans think this is bullshit, and want it over and their nominee on the Supreme Court, and even if it's not bullshit, well they want him anyways, because they will fight tooth claw and nail against anyone the Democrats want to appoint." and I can view it as "Democrats believe her, and they know how much time could be needed, if it's even possible, to prove her allegations, but if they delay it long enough, it's a win for them, regardless of truth, because of the elections they could have a chance to stop any Republican nominee. Regardless of sincere beliefs, politics are front and center, and these are politicians, on both sides.

Meeting next week, Thursday it seems, is a definite possibility. But some of the requests/demands from her attorney are questionable. She wants Kavanaugh to testify first, which isn't the way it's supposed to work. Someone has to come forward and make accusations, state their accusations, and then the accused goes up and can defend themselves against the accusations. It's pretty hard to defend yourself if you don't know the details of the accusation. That said, Kavanaugh has already said it literally didn't happen, period, it's false, and he's happy to testify under oath, he didn't do what she says he did. Mark Judge, the other person in the room has said that as well. Judge hasn't done it under oath though, and they want him to under oath. I think there's a good chance that'll happen. Not having Kavanaugh in the room I'm iffy on. Forcing a victim into a room with their abuser is some messed up shit, and I weigh that vs the right to confront your accuser. At the moment, I'd be fine with them not being in the same room, not certain on the legality of it.

I absolutely do agree that she and her family should be provided protection (as should Kavanaugh and his family in this case). They're both getting death threats, Kavanaugh's wife is getting threats, etc. Again, I agree she should get protection. I wonder which fucked up accounting bureaucrat is going to have to figure out where the money for it comes from, this was definitely not planned in any budget lol.

- I disagree with your premise. It's not that it does nothing for the Republicans at best, or at worst destroys their chances. They could also investigate and find out it's a false allegation. Sure, the Republicans can push through the vote one way or another (further polarizing the country), but if it comes out that it was categorically false, that definitely is to the overall benefit of the Republicans, they win the nomination and they win with the public too, they've been saying it's probably BS, we'll postpone, we'll have hearings.

I think each side has investigators, and maybe this is conspiracy land, simply to be able to get an advantage. They want the truth, not for the sake of honesty and trutfullness (or at least not primarily), but they want the edge. They want to know if they're right, on both sides, and they want to know before anyone else, so they can prepare for it politically and legally.

My concern with the FBI doing the investigation is more pedantic or procedural than anything. I believe there should be an investigation. I mean more like, this happened in California, so why isn't California law enforcement doing it? This is an actual question, not a Federal vs State thing, where I have a preference. I believe the FBI is more biased towards the left, but overall I still have a fair amount of faith in them as an organization, and I wouldn't object to the FBI doing it, because he is after all a Supreme Court nominee, they've vetted him six times before, if they didn't get a whisper of this, well now they have the whisper and all the background from before, so they can go looking in that direction.

My only major concern would be this needs to be wrapped up before the elections. I don't think an investigation like this would take three days, luckily we have the rest of September, and all of October, so I don't mind a delay of a few weeks, a month at the absolute most. In the end, I'm fine if it's the FBI investigating, or the local state law enforcement that investigates, or if they work together, and I'm sure the left and the right have their own investigators, and I'm damn sure the media have theirs too.

As for finding it odd that a woman didn't share her story of attempted rape with anyone? Slightly odd, but not a lot. Like you say, a lot of women never talk about it. Don't you also think there are women who mention it to their friends, privately, even years later? Or to their spouse? I can think of three women who I've known, moderately well, who've confided in me about sexual abuses, though not rapes. Basically, I know that there are women who will, period, never, ever, ever talk about it. I also know there are plenty who will share the information, sometimes right away, sometimes years or decades later with someone they've met, because on one hand it can be buttoned up and held in, and on the other, at some point it just spills out, it's too much to keep inside any longer. Which may be Ford's case, took 32 years to tell a psychiatrist, and another 4 years before we got to where we are today. This is possible, and I can believe it. Doesn't make it true, which is why I like a hearings and an investigation.

- We don't know, because we weren't there is pretty much it. How many other women might have similar stories against Kavanaugh, and are now afraid to speak up? Possibly plenty. Possibly none. This is why there are a lot of people who view her as a hero, and I believe I'm more on the side of "You need to speak up. You're going to go through a ton of shit, but you need to speak up." Plus, if it happened to other women, then they should speak up. This type of thing isn't a virtue signal, it's literally standing up and knowing a crapstorm is going to come your way, but you're doing the right thing, and people who do that should be applauded. Unless they're one of the 5% of people who makes false accusations, because they do so much more harm to their cause by making false accusations. Deceit sucks.

I'm also going to disagree. If it's provable, I'd have no problem with him literally going to jail. Rapists deserve it. I'm not sure about the statute of limitations here, but it's innocent until proven guilty. Prove him guilty. Then he doesn't get to be on the Supreme Court, he should go to jail for his actions. I don't think the situation will allow for him to go to jail though, but as long as it's provable, I'm pretty OK with the total annihilation of his life, though I'd feel extra bad for his family.


- I don't think they're acting, at least overall, in bad faith. I think they have a belief that this is bullshit, they lean more towards believing Kavanaugh, and it appeases their base when they try to get it done ASAP. I don't really know why the focus is so much on this coming Monday. It was supposed to be earlier this week, like Thursday, I believe? But that didn't happen, so now they want Monday, and it looks like it might be next Thursday instead. I'd be much more content if Republicans said "Hey, this is happening before the election. Next Thursday no good? How about 4 Thursdays from now, more time for an investigation, more time to prepare, yeah it's going to be on everyone's mind for a month. But the day after, we're voting, and that'll be 2 weeks and change before the midterm elections." Gives lots of time for investigating, for fact finding, and if it turns out he did what he's accused of, ain't no one voting for him.

[Zealot]

There's no statute of limitations for felony sexual assault in the state of Maryland, but something of this caliber would only rise to the very lowest level, sexual assault in the fourth degree, which counts as a misdemeanor for penalty purposes and would not carry more than a $1000 fine. If the argument could be successfully made to bump it up to 3rd degree sexual assault, it carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

[Salodin]

Well the short answer is, Democrats arent stalling until elections. Fords isn't either. She quite literally said shell testify next week, just not on monday. The elections arent until november. Saying this is a stall tactic is patently false when it could all be over by next week.

Shoot, it will be over by next week regardless of who gets their way. Repubs can end this on monday, or fords can end it by Friday at the latest. In both cases it's over way before elections. and therefore for that reason that excuse is trash.

Again, the only ones making a story about stalling is Republicans because they dont want his escalating any further. They're trying to muddy the waters when all they need to do is do the same thing they did in 91; have the FBI do a very quick investigation, hold a single day hearing, and done. The precedent is there already, but yet again another precedent is being broken present day America.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

It seems really weird that when Brett's name first came up every right winged publication was going on about how he was a great guy and he's nice to women and he drive his daughter's basketball club to practice whereas we didn't get that kind of character inflation with Neil Gorsuch.

Like I know I'm making an offhand comment but I can't help but wonder what the fuck these ghouls knew.

[Katlan]

Our big dumb president is finally attacking the accuser.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...473055235?s=19

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

surprised he held back this long

[shukudai]

Shukudai, she didnt tell her therapist until decades later because she wasn't ready to. That's perfectly reasonable and not uncommon.

I think the more important question is why is that a ding to her credibility? All that matters is she did it before he was nominated to scotus, when he was actually thrown into the spotlight. She literally talked about this attempted rape before Kavanaugh was relevant to the scotus. That's the part that makes this credible. A part of your "95%" of you will.

I guess my question to you is, is she in your 95%, or your 5%? Also, did you get a chance to listen to those podcasts?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I'll break down my point of view on what you wrote.

I don't disagree that it's not uncommon for someone to wait until decades later, because she wasn't ready. I don't think it's at all uncommon. I might disagree about it being reasonable, but not too strenuously. Abuse is a fucked up thing, and it fucks people up emotionally and mentally in ways they're often not prepared or capable of dealing with. People get to chose if they come forward or not. If you come forward, you risk a ton, if no one believes you, your life gets substantially worse and god only knows what happens to their mental state. But coming forward is one avenue of stopping things like this, which is why we still see Juanita Broderick showing up. If 95% of allegations are true, you're pretty damn safe if you believe 100% accusations, life sucks, you'll be wrong 5% of the time, and you'll have supported an actual victim the other 95% of the time.

Why is it a ding to her credibility? Btw, I think that's a really good question to have asked. It's not totally a ding to her credibility is the answer. It's a partial ding to her credibility, and partially in favor of her credibility, and that's why it's one of the key factors. I don't view her as "This woman who was sexually abused" nor do I view Kavanaugh as "This guy who's a sexual abuser." Both of those points of view are settled and biased. I view it as "Person A claims sexual abuse" and "Person B claims they didn't sexually abuse Person A", or at the very least, I try to rid myself of as much bias as I can. My goal is to hopefully find a way to figure out who's in the 95% and who's in the 5%. So, the questions I ask myself are something like this:

- What are her reasons for waiting so long? Trauma, fear of persecution, emotional state, trying to put it behind her and moving on. OK, those are all reasonable, and fall into the 95% category. I'm not just "Believing women!", those are valid responses from someone who's a victim of sexual abuse.
- Why now? What are the literal odds that she was at a party, with Kavanaugh, during their highschool years, and he sexually abused her, with another guy in the room, and she somehow got away. The guy turned out to be nominated for the Supreme Court. Those are astronomical chances. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, I'm just literally trying to figure out the chance that this sequence of events could occur.
- Those odds are pretty nuts. But if they're true, they certainly help account for why she waited so long, when your sexual abuser also becomes a powerful person, and one of the most powerful people in a country of 300 million+ people, who will get to decide some of the most important law in the land?

And then I add that to the other facts we have. Both Kavanaugh and Judge deny. But denying is pretty much their only play, true or not. I don't imagine Kavanaugh will be "Yeah, sorry. I'm a rapist. Or at least an attempted rapist. And Judge? Just a dude covering for me."

Right now, I'm paying attention to that tweet that says "Christine Blasey Ford contacted @washingtonpost in July before #Kavanaugh was actually selected by Trump and per reports has passed a lie-detector test in August and has 2012 psychiatrist notes recounting the encounter without specifically naming Judge Kavanaugh. #MeToo" I don't know how to read that. Does that mean she came to the Washington Post in July, and named Kavanaugh? The tweet doesn't specify that, and in cases like this, I want every tiny bit of specificity possible. Did she come to them and say "Hey, I was sexually abused by a powerful dude, 30+ years ago, he's a judge now. Not gonna say who just yet." Lie detector tests don't prove stuff as much as we wish they did, if they were reliable, they'd be used much more regularly (could be talking out of my ass on that point, I've seen more videos and arguments against using them than for using them). She also didn't mention him by name to her psychiatrist.

She's not in my 5% or my 95% yet. Not enough information, too much doubt on both sides. If she lied, she just shattered #MeToo. If they're lying, that's two people lying and they should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, because they just screwed over not just their own victim, but how much worse men would be looked at as if that needle could go any lower. And the most cynical, jaded parts of me think because of her being in liberal academia, and a Bernie supporter, the whole #Resistance stuff, it's not out of the realm of possibility that she's just doing it to protect Roe v Wade, and being a martyr. Which is why I hate the whole fucking thing, and I want to know what actually happened.

[Zealot]

To your "what are the odds" question - they both grew up in the same town and went to complementary same-sex high schools. The odds that they would know one another are the same as the odds of anyone from the same school knowing anybody else.

Kavanaugh's mother was a judge. It's reasonable to assume that he would pursue a legal career. His path took him into the upper echelons of the GOP ranks and they groomed him for higher appointments. If you're looking for "what are the odds that out of everybody in the world he just happened to assault THIS woman," that's not even a real question. I recognize that you're legitimately reaching for something here but odds are a meaningless consideration here.

[shukudai]

Oh, and thanks both Day and Salodin ^^ I like to talk, and actually discuss things, I don't like one liners. And also Tyche, cuz I haven't talked to him since we were in the same LS a loooooooong time ago. But I prefer to talk, because I don't think most people are crazy or bad people or evil, and you only get to see their logic and why they think that way if you have a discussion. I imagine it would be pretty simple for people to see some of my thoughts and instantly jump to the opposing, logic-backed but way too emotional response. Trust me, I've got strong emotional responses to all this crap too, but that doesn't help a discussion and trying to be articulate.

And nope, haven't gotten to the podcasts yet. Literally went to bed, got up and there was a zillion threads, and listening in the background while I'm trying to respond means I'm not focusing my attention, but I will actually get to it.